| Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:00:04 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/17] x86/cpu: Make srso_untrain_ret consistent |
| |
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > This does change srso_untrain_ret a little to be more consistent with > srso_alias_untrain_ret (and zen_untrain_ret). Specifically I made > srso_untrain_ret tail-call the srso_return_thunk, instead of doing the > call directly. This matches how srso_alias_untrain_ret amd > zen_untrain_ret also tail-call their respective return_thunk. > > If this is a problem this can be easily fixed and a comment added to > explain -- but this way they all end with a tail-call to their own > return-thunk, which is nice and consistent. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S > @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ SYM_INNER_LABEL(srso_safe_ret, SYM_L_GLO > int3 > /* end of movabs */ > lfence > - call srso_safe_ret > + jmp srso_return_thunk > int3 > SYM_CODE_END(srso_safe_ret) > SYM_FUNC_END(srso_untrain_ret)
I don't see a problem with it but I'd let David comment here.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
|