On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 10:11:16PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile
> > index a20eacd..918e550 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile
> > @@ -235,6 +235,16 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-sign-compare
> > #
> > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> >
> > +# Avoid indirect branches in kernel to deal with Spectre
> > +ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
> > + RETPOLINE_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
> > -mindirect-branch-register)
> > + ifneq ($(RETPOLINE_CFLAGS),)
> > + KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(RETPOLINE_CFLAGS) -DRETPOLINE
> > + else
> > + $(warning Retpoline not supported in compiler. System may be
> > insecure.)
> > + endif
> > +endif
>
> I wonder if an error might be more appropriate than a warning. I
> learned from experience that a lot of people don't see these Makefile
> warnings, and this would be a dangerous one to miss.
>
> Also if this were an error, you could get rid of the RETPOLINE define,
> and that would be one less define cluttering up the already way-too-long
> GCC arg list.
It still allows to get the ASM part covered. If that's worth it I can't tell.
Thanks,
tglx
