On 25/10/2023 11:07 pm, Pawan Gupta wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:10:41PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> +.align L1_CACHE_BYTES, 0xcc >>> +SYM_CODE_START_NOALIGN(mds_verw_sel) >>> + UNWIND_HINT_UNDEFINED >>> + ANNOTATE_NOENDBR >>> + .word __KERNEL_DS >> You need another .align here. Otherwise subsequent code will still >> start in this cacheline and defeat the purpose of trying to keep it >> separate. > Right. > >>> +SYM_CODE_END(mds_verw_sel); >> Thinking about it, should this really be CODE and not a data entry? > Would that require adding a data equivalent of .entry.text and update > KPTI to keep it mapped? Or is there an easier option? Leave it right here in .entry.text , but try using SYM_DATA() and friends. See whether objtool vomits over the result or not. And if objtool does vomit over the result, then leaving it as it is in this patch with SYM_CODE() is good enough. > >> P.S. Please CC on the full series. Far less effort than fishing the >> rest off lore. > I didn't realize get_maintainer.pl isn't doing that already. Proposing > below update to MAINTAINERS: > > --- > From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:50:41 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update entry for X86 HARDWARE VULNERABILITIES > > Add Andrew Cooper to maintainers of hardware vulnerabilities > mitigations. > > Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 2894f0777537..bf8c8707b8f8 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -23382,6 +23382,7 @@ M: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > M: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > M: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > M: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > +M: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> Oh, right. Perhaps R rather than M seeing as I can't make any time commitments, but sure. ~Andrew
