linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86: Clean up default rethunk warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241008164514.ky7ybaoitytvbwlp@treble>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:45:14 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: bp@...en8.de, david.kaplan@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] x86: Clean up default rethunk warning

On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:33:45AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:32:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Replace the funny __warn_thunk thing with a more regular
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(), and simplify the ifdeffery.
> > > 
> > > Notably this avoids RET from having recursive RETs (once from the
> > > thunk and once from the C function) -- recursive RET makes my head
> > > hurt for no good reason.
> > 
> > This could use an explanation for why the ifdefs can be removed and why
> > the alternative can be removed.
> 
> The alternative is in the WARN_ONCE now.

Ah, sneaky... It should really be called WARN_ONCE_AFTER_ALTERNATIVES or
something.

-- 
Josh