From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935323AbeAKRXM (ORCPT + 1 other); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:23:12 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:44255 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933061AbeAKRXL (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:23:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:23:03 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: David Woodhouse Cc: Jiri Kosina , Josh Poimboeuf , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , Paul Turner , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tim Chen , Dave Hansen , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski , gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] objtool: Ignore retpoline alternatives Message-ID: <20180111172303.GI6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1515688058.22302.366.camel@infradead.org> <20180111163326.deqtbqt72avfweup@treble> <1515688778.22302.372.camel@infradead.org> <20180111164826.v26m2vqfqw667zx2@treble> <20180111170524.GH6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1515691163.22302.382.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1515691163.22302.382.camel@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 05:19:23PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 18:05 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:01:23PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > >  > > > > I think I heard that retpolines won't be ported to anything older than  > > > > GCC 4.9, so maybe it's safe to use '%='.  I don't remember when it was  > > > > introduced into GCC though. > > >  > > > I'm afraid we'll have to backport retpolines in some form to 4.3.x at  > > > least. I'd be surprised if we'd be the only ones on this planet :) > > > > So upstream code is going to require 4.5 at least, and 4.4 has %=. > > Backport effort will just have to cope or backport more GCC bits, that > > is, if you're backporting retpoline to 4.3 also backport asm-goto. > > Again, the RSB thing is for more than just retpoline; it's needed for > IBRS support too and that *doesn't* necessarily require a newer > compiler at all. I think the asm-goto was exactly for IBRS, because without that you get to sprinkle LFENCE all over the place.