On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:39:32AM +0100, Andrew Scull wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:15:08AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:06:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
>
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_ptrauth.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_ptrauth.h
>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:15:08AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:06:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_ptrauth.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_ptrauth.h
> > @@ -61,44 +61,36 @@
> >
> > /*
> > * Both ptrauth_switch_to_guest
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:25:41AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 10:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:06:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> I have folded in the following patch:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_ptrauth.h
>
Hi Mark,
On 2020-06-22 10:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:06:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We currently decide to execute the PtrAuth save/restore code based
on a set of branches that evaluate as (ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH ||
ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_IMP_DEF). This can be
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 09:06:43AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> We currently decide to execute the PtrAuth save/restore code based
> on a set of branches that evaluate as (ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH ||
> ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_IMP_DEF). This can be easily replaced by
> a much simpler test as the
We currently decide to execute the PtrAuth save/restore code based
on a set of branches that evaluate as (ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH ||
ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_IMP_DEF). This can be easily replaced by
a much simpler test as the ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH capability is
exactly this expression.
