Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:27:36 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Simplify Retpoline thunk
Message-ID: <20220420152736.qzl3nikds6mq5nrr@treble>
References: <20220419204109.520779286@infradead.org>
 <20220419205241.280037046@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220419205241.280037046@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:41:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now that we rewrite all the indirect call sites, per commit:
> 
>   750850090081 ("x86/alternative: Implement .retpoline_sites support")
> 
> it doesn't make sense to have the retpoline thunks be an ALTERNATIVE_2
> that still includes a 'naked' indirect jump.
> 
> (this accidentally 'defunnels' i386 by going back to full retpolines)

So mitigations=off no longer works on i386?

Is funneling even a concern on i386?  I don't think it has eIBRS anyway,
or does it?

-- 
Josh