* Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Woodhouse, David wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 10:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Since retpoline capable compilers are widely available, make > > > > CONFIG_RETPOLINE hard depend on it. > > > > > > > > The check of RETPOLINE is changed to CONFIG_RETPOLINE. > > > > > > > > This change is based on suggestion in > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/18/1016 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@oracle.com> > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > > > > > Please turn such 'based on suggestions' into proper tags as well, i.e. > > > something like: > > > > > > Suggested-by: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> > > > > I think the suggestion came from PeterZ; I just acked it. > > > > Although on furthe reflection, I think I'd prefer a build break if > > retpoline is enabled in the kernel config and the compiler doesn't > > support it. This patch would make it silently fail to be secure. > > Agreed. Yeah, I agree that that's the best policy: if someone wants retpoline support it shouldn't silently turn off just because the wrong toolchain was used to build the kernel ... Thanks, Ingo
