linux-kernel - Re: [tip: objtool/urgent] objtool: Consolidate annotation macros

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: <CAHk-=wjc4BeSu7dHB=5AuQNWQ=sOGAuH4j0=uRwsGyiSo+m+bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 09:21:55 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: objtool/urgent] objtool: Consolidate annotation macros

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 08:57, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Find below a diff of the arch/x86/kernel/process.s output
> of your tree versus current tip:objtool/urgent.

Yeah, just a single example would have been sufficient, ie a simple

   Turn

        911:
               .pushsection .discard.annotate_insn,"M", @progbits, 8
               .long 911b - .
               .long 1
               .popsection
               jmp __x86_return_thunk

  Into

        911: .pushsection ".discard.annotate_insn", "M", @progbits, 8;
.long 911b - .; .long 1; .popsection
        jmp __x86_return_thunk

and btw, the quotes around the section name are not necessary afaik.

Also, I have to say that being mergeable is a bit annoying here:
without that, we could drop the "@progbits, 8" parts too which is just
strange noise.  Is the mergeability really a win? Because I'd assume
that it's never *actually* merged, since the expression "911b-." ends
up being a unique value?

What am I missing? It *feels* like this should just all be

        911: .pushsection .discard.annotate_insn ; .long 911b - .;
.long 1; .popsection
        jmp __x86_return_thunk

instead. But it's entirely possible I'm not seeing the reason here...

                 Linus