[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250501155603.GE4356@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 17:56:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
ardb@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
ojeda@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] objtool: Validate kCFI calls
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 09:03:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + list_for_each_entry(insn, &file->retpoline_call_list, call_node) {
> > > + struct symbol *sym = insn->sym;
> > > +
> > > + if (sym && sym->type == STT_FUNC && !sym->nocfi) {
> > > + struct instruction *prev =
> > > + prev_insn_same_sym(file, insn);
> > > +
> > > + if (!prev || prev->type != INSN_BUG) {
> > > + WARN_INSN(insn, "no-cfi indirect call!");
> > > + warnings++;
> >
> > Do we not care about indirect calls from !STT_FUNC?
I extended to also cover STT_NOTYPE, no additional warns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists