From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: "Xin Li (Intel)" <xin@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
hpa@zytor.com, jmill@asu.edu, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/fred: Remove ENDBR64 from FRED entry points
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:49:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e198fe6-c08a-4489-bb0e-aff6d2d5670b@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250715064437.807569-1-xin@zytor.com>
On 15/07/2025 7:44 am, Xin Li (Intel) wrote:
> The FRED specification v9.0 states that there is no need for FRED
> event handlers to begin with ENDBR64, because in the presence of
> supervisor indirect branch tracking, FRED event delivery does not
> enter the WAIT_FOR_ENDBRANCH state.
I would suggest phrasing this as "The FRED specification has been
changed in v9 to..."
Simply "v9 states" can be read as "we mistook what v8 said and did it
wrong".
After all, the change here is specifically as a result of new research
showing ENDBR on the entrypoints to be of negative value.
>
> As a result, remove ENDBR64 from FRED entry points.
>
> Then add ANNOTATE_NOENDBR to indicate that FRED entry points will
> never be used for indirect calls to suppress an objtool warning.
>
> This change implies that any indirect CALL/JMP to FRED entry points
> causes #CP in the presence of supervisor indirect branch tracking.
>
> Credit goes to Jennifer Miller <jmill@asu.edu> and other contributors
> from Arizona State University whose work led to this change.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/Z60NwR4w%2F28Z7XUa@ubun/
> Reviewed-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Li (Intel) <xin@zytor.com>
> Cc: Jennifer Miller <jmill@asu.edu>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Preferably with an adjusted commit message, Reviewed-by Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Any idea when an updated SIMICS will be available?
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-15 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-15 6:44 Xin Li (Intel)
2025-07-15 6:50 ` Xin Li
2025-07-15 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-15 15:34 ` Xin Li
2025-07-15 15:49 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-07-15 16:10 ` Xin Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2e198fe6-c08a-4489-bb0e-aff6d2d5670b@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmill@asu.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xin@zytor.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®