Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:06:17 +0100 | From | Andrew.Cooper3@citrix ... | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/17] x86/cpu: Rename original retbleed return thunk |
| |
On 09/08/2023 3:22 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:20:31AM -0400, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c >>> @@ -455,7 +455,12 @@ static int decode_instructions(struct ob >>> return -1; >>> } >>> >>> - if (func->return_thunk || !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func) >>> + /* >>> + * Both zen_return_thunk() and srso_safe_ret() are embedded inside >>> + * another instruction and objtool doesn't grok that. Skip validating them. >>> + */ >>> + if (!strcmp(func->name, "zen_return_thunk") || >>> + !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func) >> Hm, speaking of renaming they should probably be called >> retbleed_return_thunk() and srso_return_thunk(). > Yes, clearly naming is better in daylight. Let me regex that.
btc_*, not retbleed_*.
That way it matches the terminology you'll find in the AMD whitepaper about what's going on, and there's already an entirely different issue called Retbleed.
~Andrew
| |