On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:07:25PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> +.macro FILL_RETURN_BUFFER nr:req ftr:req
> #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
> + ALTERNATIVE "", "call __clear_rsb", \ftr
> #endif
> .endm
>
> @@ -206,15 +174,10 @@ extern char __indirect_thunk_end[];
> static inline void vmexit_fi
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:20:39PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > BOINK?
> >
> > Really?
>
> There's always someone who's bound to get offended, right? So I better
> change it to something boring, yes?
https://www.networ
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:20:39PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> BOINK?
>
> Really?
There's always someone who's bound to get offended, right? So I better
change it to something boring, yes?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the rep
> + * Google experimented with loop-unrolling and this turned out to be
> + * the optimal version — two calls, each with their own speculation
> + * trap should their return address end up getting used, in a loop.
> + */
> +.macro BOINK_RSB nr:req sp:req
BOINK?
Really?
Simplify it to call an asm-function instead of pasting 41 insn bytes at
every call site. Also, add alignment to the macro as suggested here:
https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/7625886
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov
Cc: David Woodhouse
---
arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S | 2 +-
ar
5 matches
Mail list logo