[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Jiri Kosina <> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > It should be a CPU_BUG bit as we have for the other mess. And that can be
>> > used for patching.
>> It has to be done at compile time because it requires a compiler option.
> If gcc anotates indirect calls/jumps in a way that we could patch them
> using alternatives in runtime, that'd be enough.
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs

I understand the GCC patches being discussed will fix the
vulnerability because newly compiled kernels will be compiled with a
GCC with these patches.

But, are the GCC patches being discussed also expected to fix the
vulnerability because user binaries will be compiled using them? In
such case, a binary could be maliciously changed back, or a custom GCC
made with the patches reverted.

Please forgive me if my ignorance about all the related GCC patches
makes this a stupid question.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-05 03:02    [W:0.160 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site