Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 May 2022 22:01:53 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix SLS checks |
| |
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 11:15:47AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:50:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Fix the SLS validation; not having a next instruction is also a fail > > when the next instruction should be INSN_TRAP. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > > --- > > tools/objtool/check.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > > index 3f6785415894..3354101ffe34 100644 > > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > > @@ -3380,7 +3380,7 @@ static int validate_branch(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, > > > > case INSN_RETURN: > > if (sls && !insn->retpoline_safe && > > - next_insn && next_insn->type != INSN_TRAP) { > > + (!next_insn || (next_insn && next_insn->type != INSN_TRAP))) { > > WARN_FUNC("missing int3 after ret", > > insn->sec, insn->offset); > > } > > @@ -3428,7 +3428,7 @@ static int validate_branch(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func, > > > > case INSN_JUMP_DYNAMIC: > > if (sls && !insn->retpoline_safe && > > - next_insn && next_insn->type != INSN_TRAP) { > > + (!next_insn || (next_insn && next_insn->type != INSN_TRAP))) { > > WARN_FUNC("missing int3 after indirect jump", > > insn->sec, insn->offset); > > } > > My SLS rewrite in tip/objtool/core already fixed this, FWIW. But this > could be good for -urgent.
Urgh, I should've looked at that indeed. This didn't find any new sites though; so I don't think this needs to go through urgent.
| |