Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:35:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        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: <20231011223513.GH6307@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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>
 <20231011162843.grv6kixw4ides6uw@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231011162843.grv6kixw4ides6uw@treble>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:28:43AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:41:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> > > @@ -1610,6 +1610,15 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct objtool_file *file)
> > >  			return -1;
> > >  		}
> > >  
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Since retpolines are in the same section as the return
> > > +		 * thunk, they might not use a relocation when branching to it.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (jump_dest->sym && jump_dest->sym->return_thunk) {
> > > +			add_return_call(file, insn, true);
> > > +			continue;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > *urgh*... I mean, yes, that obviously works, but should we not also have
> > the retpoline thingy for consistency? That case makes less sense though
> > :/
> 
> Consistency with what? 

the reloc case; specifically, I was thinking something along these
lines:

		if (jump-dest->sym && jump_dest->sym->retpoline_thunk) {
			add_retpoline_call(file, insn);
			continue;
		}

Then both reloc and immediate versions are more or less the same.

> The extra section seems pointless but maybe I'm missing something.

By having the section things are better delineated I suppose, be it
retpolines or rethunks, all references should be to inside the section
(and thus have a reloc) while within the section there should never be a
reference to itself.

I'm not sure it's worth much, but then we can have the above two cases
issue a WARN instead of fixing it up.

I don't care too deeply, I can't make up my mind either way. But perhaps
keeping the section is easier on all the backports, it's easy to forget
a tiny objtool patch like this.