From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: add missing BTIs
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:37:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YaUP7wa/vP2hswhF@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YaUE3zhN1VRF01ih@sirena.org.uk>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 04:50:39PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:57:09PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > When branch target identifiers are in use, code reachable via an
> > indirect branch requires a BTI landing pad at the branch target site.
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cheers!
> > In future we may wish to consider adding a new SYM_CODE_START_*()
> > variant which has an implicit BTI.
>
> > +#ifdef BTI_C
> > + BTI_C
> > +#endif
>
> The ifdefs here feel ugly enough that it might be worth doing that right
> now TBH. I'm trying to think of any cases where we might also need a
> BTI J but nothing springs to mind right now.
Agreed on the ugliness -- I'd like to revisit that with some related
cleanup/improvement to our existing SYM_*() macros. I just didn't want to do
that as a prerequisite for the fix as it'd make backports painful, e.g. by
creating a dependency on commit:
1cbdf60bd1b74e39 ("kasan: arm64: support specialized outlined tag mismatch checks")
... which uses the ifdef pattern above.
I'm also not sure what naming/structure we'd like, or whether it's simpler to
unconditionally define BTI_C.
Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-29 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-29 13:57 [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: add missing BTIs Mark Rutland
2021-11-29 16:50 ` Mark Brown
2021-11-29 17:37 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2021-11-29 17:48 ` Mark Brown
2021-12-02 10:43 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-02 12:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-12-03 11:50 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-03 13:29 ` Mark Brown
2021-12-02 10:59 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YaUP7wa/vP2hswhF@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox