Re: [tip: x86/bugs] x86/retpoline: Ensure default return thunk isn't used at runtime
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip: x86/bugs] x86/retpoline: Ensure default return thunk isn't used at runtime
- From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:54:33 -0700
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Kaplan <david.kaplan@xxxxxxx>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20231018151245.GCZS/17QhDGe7q6K+w@fat_crate.local>
- References: <20231012141031.GHZSf+V1NjjUJTc9a9@fat_crate.local> <169713303534.3135.10558074245117750218.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> <20231018132352.GBZS/caGJ8Wk9kmTbg@fat_crate.local> <ZS/f8DeEIWhBtBeb@gmail.com> <20231018151245.GCZS/17QhDGe7q6K+w@fat_crate.local>
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:38:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If then WARN_ONCE().
>
> WARN_ONCE() is not enough considering that if this fires, it means we're
> not really properly protected against one of those RET-speculation
> things.
>
> It needs to be warning constantly but then still allow booting. I.e,
> a ratelimited warn of sorts but I don't think we have that... yet.
I'm not sure a rate-limited WARN() would be a good thing. Either the
user is regularly checking dmesg (most likely in some automated fashion)
or they're not. If the latter, a rate-limited WARN() would wrap dmesg
pretty quickly.
--
Josh
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]