RE: [tip: x86/core] objtool: Find unused ENDBR instructions

From: David Laight
Date: Tue Mar 15 2022 - 11:40:01 EST

Next message: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add ChromeOS fingerprint binding"
Previous message: Arnaud Pouliquen: "[PATCH] rpmsg: virtio: set dst address on first message received"
In reply to: tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra: "[tip: x86/core] objtool: Find unused ENDBR instructions"
Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "[PATCH v4 45/45] x86/alternative: Use .ibt_endbr_seal to seal indirect calls"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> objtool: Find unused ENDBR instructions
>
> Find all ENDBR instructions which are never referenced and stick them
> in a section such that the kernel can poison them, sealing the
> functions from ever being an indirect call target.

Thought, what happens if the only indirect call is from
code in a module?

David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Next message: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add ChromeOS fingerprint binding"
Previous message: Arnaud Pouliquen: "[PATCH] rpmsg: virtio: set dst address on first message received"
In reply to: tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra: "[tip: x86/core] objtool: Find unused ENDBR instructions"
Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "[PATCH v4 45/45] x86/alternative: Use .ibt_endbr_seal to seal indirect calls"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]