[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250514222507.GKaCUYQ9TVadHl7zMv@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 00:25:07 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@...zon.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Don't warn when overwriting
retbleed_return_thunk with srso_return_thunk
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 03:08:35PM -0700, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote:
> - if (x86_return_thunk != __x86_return_thunk)
> + /*
> + * There can only be one return thunk enabled at a time, so issue a
> + * warning when overwriting it. retbleed_return_thunk is a special case
> + * which is safe to be overwritten with srso_return_thunk since it
> + * provides a superset of the functionality and is handled correctly in
> + * entry_untrain_ret().
> + */
> + if ((x86_return_thunk != __x86_return_thunk) &&
> + (thunk != srso_return_thunk ||
> + x86_return_thunk != retbleed_return_thunk))
Instead of making this an unreadable conditional, why don't we ...
> pr_warn("x86/bugs: return thunk changed\n");
... turn this into a
pr_info("set return thunk to: %ps\n", ...)
and simply say which thunk was set?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists