Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 11:34:22 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        David Kaplan <david.kaplan@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        luto@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "x86/retpoline: Remove
 .text..__x86.return_thunk section"
Message-ID: <20231011093422.GBZSZsHumBjU6c68Zb@fat_crate.local>
References: <20231010171020.462211-1-david.kaplan@amd.com>
 <20231010171020.462211-2-david.kaplan@amd.com>
 <20231010174833.GG14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20231010195721.p5pb273kevg7ydxz@treble>
 <20231010200429.GIZSWuTWSUM9aId7a6@fat_crate.local>
 <20231010201912.7pjksbparssqu34k@treble>
 <20231010212254.ypk2wdogno55shit@treble>
 <20231011074142.GK14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231011074142.GK14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:41:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> *urgh*... I mean, yes, that obviously works, but should we not also have
> the retpoline thingy for consistency? That case makes less sense though
> :/
> 
> Perhaps warn about this instead of fixing it? Forcing people to play the
> section game?

I like the conservative aspect of that: keep the separate sections and
warn if the return thunk is in the same section.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette