[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221207153000.2146772-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 16:30:00 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/boot: fix relying on link order
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 16:24:00 +0100
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 04:08:54PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > I was hoping it would hit one of the 6.1 RCs as a fix,
>
> As a fix for which existing configuration which breaks if this fix is
> missing?
Ugh, fair enough :D Without it, FG-KASLR is broken, GCC-LTO is
broken, but none of them is in the mainline.
I recall there were some folks with LLD for which this $(head-y)
removal caused issues as well. But if they're quiet now, seems like
they don't hardly need it.
But not every fix is a fix only when it's easy to find a repro,
right...? But at least such are not urgent, you're correct here.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists