On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/22/2018 07:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>> >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html >>>>> >>>>> Is OK for trunk? >>>> >>>> I see that using register makes the problem go away and pushing address to >>>> stack >>>> seemed bit odd anyway. However how does this work on other types of thunk? >>> >>> Kernel only uses -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern. I am working on a >>> proposal >>> to use -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern in user space to support CET in a >>> single >>> binary. So at the end of the day, only >>> -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern will be used. >> >> OK, so it is about the fact that we do not really want to support all >> -mindirect-branch options in the future? If we don't want to support the >> correctly, >> I wonder why we are including them at all. Shall we at least output >> warning/sorry >> when user tries other thunk type with stack unwinding enabled? >> (does Kernel use it?) > A few notes. > > 1. It's not even clear at this time that retpolining user space binaries > makes any sense at all. SO before doing anything to make this easier > I'd like to see a justification for why it's really needed.
Hi Jeff, Which part were commenting? My patch to add TARGET_INDIRECT_BRANCH_REGISTER or removing -mindirect-branch choices? > 2. On the other hand, the existing thunk options do make it easier to > test independent of hte kernel. ie, I can turn on inline thunks by > default and test things in user space (ie, do thunks generally work > properly). It sounds reasonable. -- H.J.
