From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8493BC433DF for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74BF022241 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="WE3ire40" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 74BF022241 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-20207-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 5281 invoked by uid 550); 14 Oct 2020 22:47:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 5260 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2020 22:47:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1ZkeuWYx0x8NcK97W3bc1qXSyhy0ywO9Zu1gztVJSpU=; b=WE3ire40GLinUOppIi7ZcbOVETm0WyX7RLx7xCaymADCWSNOR8y2/RwcPtSnft1aFu 0ChZJ7ygTGlmsX8EVM6bGmei1Zx5q2bj0yebVv+SOHsAiV0uEn+oar9jyVds8dZOPeFt NDilDA6BdcrnvpJnue+wzGel9tWEzsFUzutQ0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1ZkeuWYx0x8NcK97W3bc1qXSyhy0ywO9Zu1gztVJSpU=; b=Y7WkNFrBfLZwalQejAtlOYAddynAAO1qA+L3ahobw0xoUKmv3sbgGwCKE9k5cn5Bzs 2nRuC3JbBQ1+Ust85ABO1Nyp/wGGOcC6FxYBZt2H68l9Eg5wztwqxcg3WC83xZ87YQoA j+4iTHcjU1sZDXu71GVwUFFn8OgtjT729O3IzZfHq+/ZLUFsbdcn8vclGDl4Nu+d+wSn 9n7xE684J8e4snN+XCitUoeBudBUlQt5tUuqdjk7fe0G7DIDs7hF4663UqBgRNaXplSs +aBMjvd5432xnr/jD7D20DNP5QdJ3JiZ9Mqhrwy2oXuMFDeKaQkVBZHLghn45uUl2wl+ 9ClA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gpepi3FfUUAV1e2TccT77JVH3P116in/jqv6KOoixeZQTR1kL 3AUIlmscr1BZ2QVp6DX3ZvOs8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7BSKlM7cAv8r7/0jhJx32xhaKYpzsb2RiBeH0xy7bNtYmDuLkURklLKzHhQnxbTes9rTU2A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f0ca:: with SMTP id fa10mr1313834pjb.130.1602715621497; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:46:59 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Thomas Gleixner , Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Sami Tolvanen , Steven Rostedt , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Paul E. McKenney" , Nick Desaulniers , clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps Message-ID: <202010141545.1E2A393C62@keescook> References: <20201013003203.4168817-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20201013003203.4168817-23-samitolvanen@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201013003203.4168817-23-samitolvanen@google.com> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:32:00PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > Running objtool --vmlinux --duplicate on vmlinux.o produces a few > warnings about indirect jumps with retpoline: > > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: wakeup_long64()+0x61: indirect jump > found in RETPOLINE build > ... > > This change adds ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE annotations to the jumps > in assembly code to stop the warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen Reviewed-by: Kees Cook This looks like it's an independent fix -- can an x86 maintainer pick up this patch directly? -- Kees Cook