Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:16 -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > On 02/01/2018 08:51 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. The same applies to any > > EFI runtime calls, APM and all kinds of other random crap that calls > > into firmware. I'm not sure why those aren't

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:16 -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > On 02/01/2018 08:51 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. The same applies to any > > EFI runtime calls, APM and all kinds of other random crap that calls > > into firmware. I'm not sure why those aren't

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > > __noretpoline > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > > __noretpoline > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On 02/01/2018 08:51 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. The same applies to any > EFI runtime calls, APM and all kinds of other random crap that calls > into firmware. I'm not sure why those aren't showing up. > Dave, Are you planning to update your

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On 02/01/2018 08:51 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. The same applies to any > EFI runtime calls, APM and all kinds of other random crap that calls > into firmware. I'm not sure why those aren't showing up. > Dave, Are you planning to update your

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:14:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:51:35PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Ideally we'd have a way to mark the module 'unsafe' or something. > > > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. > > That would work, assuming IBRS is

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:14:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:51:35PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Ideally we'd have a way to mark the module 'unsafe' or something. > > > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. > > That would work, assuming IBRS is

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:51:35PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Ideally we'd have a way to mark the module 'unsafe' or something. > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. That would work, assuming IBRS is available to begin with of course. Do we WARN if we hit this code and don't

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:51:35PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Ideally we'd have a way to mark the module 'unsafe' or something. > > No, we just need to set IBRS before doing it. That would work, assuming IBRS is available to begin with of course. Do we WARN if we hit this code and don't

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 16:40 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:32:11PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 16:40 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:32:11PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > thing from David. For the series: Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf -- Josh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > thing from David. For the series: Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf -- Josh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:32:11PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > > __noretpoline > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:32:11PM +, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > > __noretpoline > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > > thing from David. > > Have you run this through 0-day bot yet? Yes, it complains

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > > thing from David. > > Have you run this through 0-day bot yet? Yes, it complains

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > __noretpoline > > thing from David. > Have you run this through 0-day bot yet?  A manual awk/sed

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:28 -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the > > __noretpoline > > thing from David. > Have you run this through 0-day bot yet?  A manual awk/sed

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > thing from David. Have you run this through 0-day bot yet? A manual awk/sed found another one, which objtool confirms:

Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline > thing from David. Have you run this through 0-day bot yet? A manual awk/sed found another one, which objtool confirms:

[PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline thing from David.

[PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation

There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline thing from David.