[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4c1c9b8-9ced-7282-718e-48e14375e9f1@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:06:17 +0100
From: Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David.Kaplan@....com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/17] x86/cpu: Rename original retbleed return thunk
On 09/08/2023 3:22 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:20:31AM -0400, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
>>> @@ -455,7 +455,12 @@ static int decode_instructions(struct ob
>>> return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (func->return_thunk || !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func)
>>> + /*
>>> + * Both zen_return_thunk() and srso_safe_ret() are embedded inside
>>> + * another instruction and objtool doesn't grok that. Skip validating them.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!strcmp(func->name, "zen_return_thunk") ||
>>> + !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func)
>> Hm, speaking of renaming they should probably be called
>> retbleed_return_thunk() and srso_return_thunk().
> Yes, clearly naming is better in daylight. Let me regex that.
btc_*, not retbleed_*.
That way it matches the terminology you'll find in the AMD whitepaper
about what's going on, and there's already an entirely different issue
called Retbleed.
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists