On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 18:44 +0000, Van De Ven, Arjan wrote: > your question was specific to RSB not BTB. But please show the empirical evidence for RSB ? We were hypothesising, which should have been clear from: On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 09:11 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > Likewise if the RSB only stores the low 31 bits of the target, SMEP > isn't much help there either. > > Do we need to look again at the fact that we've disabled the RSB- > stuffing for SMEP? ... and later... On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 17:31 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > Note, we've switched from talking about BTB to RSB here, so this is a > valid concern if the *RSB* only has the low bits of the target. I'm glad to hear that it *isn't* a valid concern for the RSB and the code in Linus' tree is correct. Thank you for clearing that up.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
