[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200226195710.6sma4whvs3o76oux@ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:10 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, x86-patch-review@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/27] x86/cet/shstk: Add Kconfig option for
user-mode Shadow Stack protection
> On 2/5/20 10:19 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > Introduce Kconfig option: X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER.
> >
> > Shadow Stack (SHSTK) provides protection against function return address
> > corruption. It is active when the kernel has this feature enabled, and
> > both the processor and the application support it. When this feature is
> > enabled, legacy non-SHSTK applications continue to work, but without SHSTK
> > protection.
> >
> > The user-mode SHSTK protection is only implemented for the 64-bit kernel.
> > IA32 applications are supported under the compatibility mode.
>
> I think what you're trying to say here is that the hardware supports
> shadow stacks with 32-bit kernels. However, this series does not
> include that support and we have no plans to add it.
>
> Right?
>
> I'll let others weigh in, but I rather dislike the use of acronyms here.
> I'd much rather see the english "shadow stack" everywhere than SHSTK.
For the record, I like "shadow stack" better, too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists