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 for tool chains not
knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditionals where just SETSSBSY is the
problem to be dropped again.
No change to generated code.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Looks like an improvement overall in code clarity:
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
Thanks.
Can you test on clang? Just to be on the safe side, otherwise I can
test it.
Works with 5.<whatever> that I have on one of my boxes.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
@@ -237,9 +237,7 @@ iret_exit_to_guest:
* %ss must be saved into the space left by the trampoline.
*/
ENTRY(lstar_enter)
-#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_SHSTK
ALTERNATIVE "", "setssbsy", X86_FEATURE_XEN_SHSTK
Should the setssbsy be quoted, or it doesn't matter? I'm asking
because the same construction used by CLAC/STAC doesn't quote the
instruction.
I actually thought we consistently quote these. It doesn't matter
as long as it's a single word. Quoting becomes necessary when
there are e.g. blanks involved, which happens for insns with
operands.
Jan
