On 28.07.2020 16:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 15/07/2020 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
Now that I've done this I'm not longer sure which direction is better to
follow: On one hand this introduces dead code (even if just NOPs) into
CET-SS-disabled builds. Otoh this is a step towards breaking the tool
On 15/07/2020 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
> knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditi
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:50:23PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.07.2020 17:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:48:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Should the setssbsy be quoted, or it doesn't matter? I'm asking
> > because the same construction used by CLAC/STAC doesn't
On 27.07.2020 17:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:48:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:48:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
> knowing of CET-SS,
Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditionals where just SETSSBSY is the
problem to be d
