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:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:21:17 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To:     Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        "Cooper, Andrew" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@ethz.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        "Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@intel.com>,
        "Nuzman, Joseph" <joseph.nuzman@intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Gross, Jurgen" <jgross@suse.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/38] x86/retbleed: Call depth tracking mitigation
Message-ID: <YtboDUndGtMVGRCU@google.com>
References: <87o7xmup5t.ffs@tglx>
 <YtXOMPpmx8TcFtOX@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87lesqukm5.ffs@tglx>
 <2f7f899cb75b79b08b0662ff4d2cb877@overdrivepizza.com>
 <CABCJKudvSv9bAOrDLHki5XPYNJK6=PS-x8v=E08es8w4LJpxBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fsiyuhyz.ffs@tglx>
 <CAHk-=wjEDJ4+xg0CWR7CaCKnO6Nhzn+vjJy7CjaVmf9R+g_3ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj6U3UamfLLV+rPu1WmKG_w3p0Bg=YbQcG1DxHpmP40Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiYHXeWnF8Ea5xb735ehJ8FbjTT6UCvHYjX=Ooc7Z5sOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a6d75b81cdba4a244b142e2f8bb65d71@overdrivepizza.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a6d75b81cdba4a244b142e2f8bb65d71@overdrivepizza.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 05:19:13PM -0700, Joao Moreira wrote:
> > The extra instruction is likely less of a problem than the extra
> > register used.
> > 
> FWIIW, per-ABI, R11 is a scratch-reg and should be usable without hard
> consequences in this scenario.

Clang always uses r11 for the indirect call with retpolines, so we'd
need to use another register. Nevertheless, splitting the constant into
two instructions would solve the call target gadget issue.

Sami