[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zyoood0ooSbpultV@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 06:16:01 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alyssa.milburn@...el.com,
scott.d.constable@...el.com, joao@...rdrivepizza.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, ebiggers@...nel.org,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, kees@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86,kcfi: Fix EXPORT_SYMBOL vs kCFI
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:39:02PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The expectation is that all EXPORT'ed symbols are free to have their
> address taken and called indirectly.
I don't think that is the case at all. The is a relatively small number
of exported symbols that are called indirectly. I'd much rather mark
those explicitly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists