From: Xin Li <xin@zytor.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.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 09:10:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1999cba-5721-42d4-bbe3-11ecbe218946@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e198fe6-c08a-4489-bb0e-aff6d2d5670b@citrix.com>
On 7/15/2025 8:49 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 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.
Sure, that makes it more like a story ;)
>
>>
>> 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>
Thanks, will add in v3 later today (Sent out v2 just now).
>
> Any idea when an updated SIMICS will be available?
The FRED testing is more focused on hardware now :).
Anyway, let me check here.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-15 16:11 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
2025-07-15 16:10 ` Xin Li [this message]
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=e1999cba-5721-42d4-bbe3-11ecbe218946@zytor.com \
--to=xin@zytor.com \
--cc=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 \
/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®