linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH,v4,1/1,AARCH64][PR102768] aarch64: Add compiler support for Shadow Call Stack

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7b5a0c4e-ae34-d5be-36d8-5b2eb42bbcce@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 21:30:18 -0800
From:   Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     gcc-patches@....gnu.org, richard.earnshaw@....com,
        marcus.shawcroft@....com, kyrylo.tkachov@....com, hp@....gnu.org,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, nsz@....gnu.org, pageexec@...il.com,
        qinzhao@....gnu.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        richard.sandiford@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH,v4,1/1,AARCH64][PR102768] aarch64: Add compiler
 support for Shadow Call Stack



On 2/11/22 07:35, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>> On 2/11/22 01:53, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>>> On 2/10/22 01:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>>>>
>> And I think maybe we could handle this through three patches:
>> 1.Keep current patch (a V5) unchanged for scs.
>> 2.Add shrink-warpping for X30:
>> logically this might be a separate topic, and I think more testing
>> might be needed here (Well, I'm a little worried about if there might
>> be other effects, since I just read this part of the code roughly
>> yesterday).
>> 3.Add scs push/pop to shrink-wrapping (and maybe we can do the same for
>> the PAC code in pro/epilogue, since it's also the operation of the X30).
> 
> Yeah, that's fair.
> 
> (Like I said earlier, I wasn't asking for the shrink-wrapping change.
> It was just a note in passing.  But as you point out, the individual
> shrink-wrapping support would be even more work than I'd imagined.)
> 

Got it!

Thanks,
Dan