On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 14:17 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:55 PM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > When Intel indirect branch tracking is enabled, functions in vDSO which > > may be called indirectly must have endbr32 or endbr64 as the first > > instruction. Compiler must support -fcf-protection=branch so that it > > can be used to compile vDSO. > > > > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/entry/vdso/.gitignore | 4 ++++ > > arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile | 12 +++++++++++- > > arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso-layout.lds.S | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/.gitignore b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/.gitignore > > index aae8ffdd5880..552941fdfae0 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/.gitignore > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/.gitignore > > @@ -5,3 +5,7 @@ vdso32-sysenter-syms.lds > > vdso32-int80-syms.lds > > vdso-image-*.c > > vdso2c > > +vclock_gettime.S > > +vgetcpu.S > > +vclock_gettime.asm > > +vgetcpu.asm > > > What's this hunk about? We used to allow using non-CET capable BINUTILS and the Makefile would create these. I will remove them from the patch. Yu-cheng
