Re: [PATCH] retpoline/module: Taint kernel for missing retpoline in module

[Andi Kleen]

> > Also what's the point of putting this information into every symbol?
> 
> It makes it easy to check :)

Easier than nm?

Per symbol still doesn't make any sense to me.

> 
> > Once per module is good enough.
> > 
> > We already have similar checks for staging etc.
> 
> Sure, but this is more of a "Hey, your version of GCC is doing something
> different than what you built the kernel with, watch out!" which is much
> more generic and good to know.  A whole taint for one CPU bug type seems
> overkill to me.

I removed the taint in version 2, posted yesterday. It now just prints
the warning and resets the vulnerability reporting in sysfs.

-Andi