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;
Message-ID: <509dd891-73cc-31b9-18ac-2e930084c02f@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:54:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.18 34/61] objtool: Update Retpoline validation
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
References: <20220712183236.931648980@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20220712183238.342232911@linuxfoundation.org>
 <63e23f80-033f-f64e-7522-2816debbc367@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <63e23f80-033f-f64e-7522-2816debbc367@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 13. 07. 22, 9:45, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12. 07. 22, 20:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>
>> commit 9bb2ec608a209018080ca262f771e6a9ff203b6f upstream.
>>
>> Update retpoline validation with the new CONFIG_RETPOLINE requirement of
>> not having bare naked RET instructions.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this breaks compilation on i386:
>  > arch/x86/kernel/../../x86/xen/xen-head.S:35: Error: no such 
> instruction: `annotate_unret_safe'
> 
> Config:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openSUSE/kernel-source/stable/config/i386/pae 
> 
> 
> And yeah, upstream¹⁾ is affected too.
> 
> ¹⁾I am at commit b047602d579b4fb028128a525f056bbdc890e7f0.

A naive fix is:
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
  #include <asm/cpufeatures.h>
  #include <asm/percpu.h>
  #include <asm/nops.h>
+#include <asm/nospec-branch.h>
  #include <asm/bootparam.h>
  #include <asm/export.h>
  #include <asm/pgtable_32.h>

The question (I don't know answer to) is whether x86_32 should actually 
do ANNOTATE_UNRET_SAFE.

thanks,
-- 
js