Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <201907160706.9xUSQ36X%lkp@intel.com> <CAK7LNATqxQnen2Tzcici8GnJuc-qNeCYcCYisKM2OkNow1FDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190716124249.GP5418@ubuntu-xps13>
In-Reply-To: <20190716124249.GP5418@ubuntu-xps13>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:59:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNATJNC3xaBbZBROEgggop41fUFBMA56_+aX3Xt=g7FGd_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kbuild:kbuild 5/19] drivers/atm/eni.o: warning: objtool:
 eni_init_one()+0xe42: indirect call found in RETPOLINE build
To:     Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, kbuild-all@01.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:42 PM Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:57:24PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > (+ Josh Poimboeuf)
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:44 AM kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > tree:   https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/masahiroy/linux-kbuild.git kbuild
> > > head:   0ff0c3753e06c0420c80dac1b0187a442b372acb
> > > commit: 2eaf4e87ba258cc3f27e486cdf32d5ba76303c6f [5/19] kbuild: add -fcf-protection=none to retpoline flags
> > > config: x86_64-randconfig-s2-07160214 (attached as .config)
> > > compiler: gcc-4.9 (Debian 4.9.4-2) 4.9.4
> > > reproduce:
> > >         git checkout 2eaf4e87ba258cc3f27e486cdf32d5ba76303c6f
> > >         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > >         make ARCH=x86_64
> >
> > 0-day bot reports objtool warnings with the following applied:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11037379/
> >
> > I have no idea about objtool.
> >
> > Is it better to drop this patch for now?
>
> I'm surprised that the change would have any impact on a build with
> gcc-4.9, since -fcf-protection seems to have been introduced in gcc-8. I
> guess there's no full build log that would let us see the actual flags
> passed to the compiler.
>
> I'll try to reproduce this result. If you think the patch should be
> dropped in the meantime, that's fine.

Dropped now.

Thanks.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada