Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86/alternative: add indirect call patching

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, a random absolute address isn't going to be any better or worse
> than 0. But perhaps adding the relocation as a comment helps?
> 
> 
>    ff 15 00 00 00 00       call   *0x0(%rip)  #  R_X86_64_PC32    pv_ops+0x4
> into:
>    e8 00 00 00 00 90	   call   +0          #  R_X86_64_PC32 *(pv_ops+0x04)

A bit better, yeah.

> ALT_FLAG_DEREFERENCE_INDIRECT_CALL ?
> 
> I'm going to already raise my hand and say that's too long ;-)

To your own suggestion? :-P

ALT_FLAG_DIRECT_CALL simply, I guess, along with an explanation.
Meaning, this flag tells the alternatives to produce a direct call.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette