[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201015203942.f3kwcohcwwa6lagd@treble>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:39:42 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:23:41AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
>
> > It would probably be good to keep LTO and non-LTO builds in sync about
> > which files are subjected to objtool checks. So either you should be
> > removing the OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD annotations for anything that
> > is linked into the main kernel (which would be a nice cleanup, if that
> > is possible),
>
> This, I've had to do that for a number of files already for the limited
> vmlinux.o passes we needed for noinstr validation.
Getting rid of OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD is indeed the end goal, though
I'm not sure how practical that will be for some of the weirder edge
case.
On a related note, I have some old crypto cleanups which need dusting
off.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
