linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH v2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support

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: <CANiq72m0O7ua3F3eqcEru9RuEWHQbG4SumRSoKCi50A8d-+HtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:28:32 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH v2] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:35 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

The idea is to avoid differing here to begin with, i.e. to use the
same code for both compilers (only whenever that is possible, of
course), thus having a single `#define` in a single file.

Do you think we will have to change in the future for some reason,
thus needing to split it again?

Cheers,
Miguel