[PATCH] D88194: [X86] CET endbr enhance

[Sanjay Patel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

spatel added a comment.

In D88194#2323400 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88194#2323400>, @spatel wrote:

> In D88194#2323095 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88194#2323095>, @xiangzhangllvm wrote:
>
>> In D88194#2322366 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88194#2322366>, @spatel wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I don't have any other questions/comments (other than it would still be helpful to reduce/pre-commit the tests).
>>
>> Done, then update the tests.
>
> Thanks! That makes it easier to see how things are changing with this patch.
> In addition to @craig.topper 's question about endbr32, shouldn't we have a test that checks for multiple and different prefix bytes? If I am seeing correctly, there is only 1 test checking for a single `0x2E` optional prefix.

Thinking about this a bit more: if the attacker can recognize multiple different optional prefix bytes, then is there much value in complementing those bytes? They are already searching for a match from some dictionary of byte strings, so inverting the bits just means they need to increase their search by 2x?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D88194/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D88194