| Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:47:35 -0800 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 09/39] x86/ibt,paravirt: Sprinkle ENDBR |
| |
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:51:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 1 + > arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 1 + > arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 3 +++ > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 3 ++- > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 2 ++ > 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S > @@ -635,6 +635,7 @@ SYM_INNER_LABEL(restore_regs_and_return_ > > SYM_INNER_LABEL_ALIGN(native_iret, SYM_L_GLOBAL) > UNWIND_HINT_IRET_REGS > + ENDBR // paravirt_iret
If this is also setting the stage for finer grain CFI schemes, should these macros instead be something more generically named? Like, INDIRECT_ENTRY, or so? I imagine that'd avoid future churn, but maybe I'm pre-optimizing... Regardless:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
-- Kees Cook
|