Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "anywheere".
Did you mean:
anywhere
2018 Feb 07
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...on't have to do this
> whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names to match what
> GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite us. =]
>
What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the stack?
What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere?
LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer before
we update all of our branches with new names.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180207/0516410a/attachment.html&...
2018 Feb 07
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names
> > to match what GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to
> > bite us. =]
> >
> What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the
> stack? What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere?
>
> LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer
> before we update all of our branches with new names....
That would be __x86_indirect_thunk but the kernel doesn't use it. We
use -mindirect-branch-register and only ever expect the compiler to use
the register...
2018 Feb 07
4
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 22:08 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> So, I was waiting to hear a definitive response on whether using aliases
> is hard, and didn't see one here, which is why I haven't responded further.
>
> However, a colleauge pointed me at an LKML thread where it seems
2018 Feb 07
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...to do this
> whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names to match what
> GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite us. =]
>
>
> What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the stack?
> What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere?
>
> LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer
> before we update all of our branches with new names....
>
>
> That would be __x86_indirect_thunk but the kernel doesn't use it. We use
> -mindirect-branch-register and only ever expect the compiler...