Re: [PATCH 08/24] x86,sme: Annotate indirect call

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 06:49:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:37:30AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 16:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > This is boot code, we run this _way_ before userspace comes along to
> > > poison our branch predictor.
> > 
> > Hm, objtool knows about sections, doesn't it? Why it is whining about
> > indirect jumps in inittext anyway?
> > 
> > In fact, why are we even *doing* retpolines in inittext? Not that we
> > are; since we flipped the ALTERNATIVE logic around, at that point we
> > still have the 'oldinstr' which is a bare jmp anyway. We might as well
> > do this:
> > 
> > --- a/include/linux/init.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/init.h
> > @@ -37,10 +37,15 @@
> >   * as gcc otherwise puts the data into the bss section and not into the init
> >   * section.
> >   */
> > +#if defined(RETPOLINE) && !defined(MODULE)
> > +#define __noretpoline __attribute__((indirect_branch("keep")))
> > +#else
> > +#define __noretpoline
> > +#endif

Clearly I cannot read...

> >  /* These are for everybody (although not all archs will actually
> >     discard it in modules) */
> > -#define __init         __section(.init.text) __cold __inittrace __latent_entropy
> > +#define __init         __section(.init.text) __cold __inittrace __latent_entropy __noretpoline
> 
> We run module __init text concurrently with userspace.