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  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]
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:31:58 -0800
From:   Dan Li <>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Nicholas Piggin <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <>,
        Marco Elver <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Linux ARM <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH v2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support

On 2/28/22 14:35, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:37 PM Dan Li <> wrote:
>>>> +#define __noscs __attribute__((__no_sanitize__("shadow-call-stack")))
>>>> +#endif
>>> Since both compilers have it, and I guess the `#ifdef` condition would
>>> work for both, could this be moved into `compiler_types.h` where the
>>> empty `__noscs` definition is, and remove the one from
>>> `compiler-clang.h`?
>> In the clang documentation I see __has_feature(shadow_call_stack) is
>> used to check if -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack is enabled, so I think
>> maybe it's fine to use "#ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK"
>> instead of "#if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)" here, then
>> move it to `compiler_types.h`.
> Or simply add a #define for __noscs to include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> with appropriate guard and leave the existing #ifndef in
> include/linux/compiler_types.h as is.  I'd prefer that when the
> compilers differ in terms of feature detection since it's as explicit
> as possible.

To make sure I understand correctly, that means I should keep
the current patch unchanged right?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists