On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 07:14:27PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Shouldn't the rest of head64.c have the stack protector disabled, for
> similar reasons?
Not aware of any reason to that so far...
> Hm, doesn't most of that just go away (or at least become "Already
> Broken; Someone Else's Problem™") if you just concede to put your new C
> function into head64.c along with a whole bunch of other existing
> CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT support?
If it were only that, maybe, but we have to do the stack __va() thing as
Tom explained. So the jumping-through-hoops just to have a simple
function in C is not worth it... IMNSVHO, that is.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
