Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: CVE-2017-5715, aka Spectre

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Uros,
>> >>
>> >> Can you take a look at my x86 backend changes so that they are ready
>> >> to check in once we have consensus.
>> >
>> > Please finish the talks about the correct approach first. Once the
>> > consensus is reached, please post the final version of the patches for
>> > review.
>>
>> A  new set of patches are posted at
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01041.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01044.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01045.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01043.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01042.html
>>
>> I will submit an additional patch to disallow
>> -mindirect-branch=/-mfunction-return=
>> with -mshstk.
>>
>> > BTW: I have no detailed insight in these issues, so I'll look mostly
>> > at the implementation details, probably early next week.
>> >
>>
>> Kernel teams are waiting for the GCC 8 upstream patches.  They
>> have been using my GCC 7 backports for weeks now.   Jan, can
>> you review my patches before Uros has time next week?
>
> I have already read the original series, so I can take a look at the

Thanks.

> updated ones. Did we get some concensus on how much we want to do
> in middle-end?

I believe so.  Most of people, including Jeff, now think that my x86 specific
approach is the way to go.

-- 
H.J.