Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/17] x86/cpu: Rename original retbleed return thunk

[Andrew . Cooper3]

On 09/08/2023 3:22 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:20:31AM -0400, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
>>> @@ -455,7 +455,12 @@ static int decode_instructions(struct ob
>>>  				return -1;
>>>  			}
>>>  
>>> -			if (func->return_thunk || !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func)
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * Both zen_return_thunk() and srso_safe_ret() are embedded inside
>>> +			 * another instruction and objtool doesn't grok that. Skip validating them.
>>> +			 */
>>> +			if (!strcmp(func->name, "zen_return_thunk") ||
>>> +			    !strcmp(func->name, "srso_safe_ret") || func->alias != func)
>> Hm, speaking of renaming they should probably be called
>> retbleed_return_thunk() and srso_return_thunk().
> Yes, clearly naming is better in daylight. Let me regex that.

btc_*, not retbleed_*.

That way it matches the terminology you'll find in the AMD whitepaper
about what's going on, and there's already an entirely different issue
called Retbleed.

~Andrew