[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240628004459.ik6a5l6sgdp66v5n@treble>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:44:59 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] x86/syscall: Mark exit[_group] syscall handlers
__noreturn
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:26:34AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:02:00PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > The direct-call syscall dispatch function doesn't know that the exit()
> > and exit_group() syscall handlers don't return, so the call sites aren't
> > optimized accordingly.
> >
> > Fix that by marking the exit syscall declarations __noreturn.
> >
> > Fixes the following warnings:
> >
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: x64_sys_call+0x2804: __x64_sys_exit() is missing a __noreturn annotation
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: ia32_sys_call+0x29b6: __ia32_sys_exit_group() is missing a __noreturn annotation
> >
> > Fixes: 7390db8aea0d ("x86/bhi: Add support for clearing branch history at syscall entry")
> > Reported-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Closes: https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/6dba9b32-db2c-4e6d-9500-7a08852f17a3@paulmck-laptop
>
> This here talks about
>
> 1e3ad78334a6 ("x86/syscall: Don't force use of indirect calls for system calls")
>
> being the culprit.
>
> But Fixes points to something unrelated...?
Ah yeah, it should be
Fixes: 1e3ad78334a6 ("x86/syscall: Don't force use of indirect calls for system calls")
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists