[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0bb75f71ccc7fdf5cd5012441536918a09a9322.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 09:59:02 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...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>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
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>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/26] x86/cet/shstk: Add Kconfig option for
user-mode Shadow Stack
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 08:55 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/29/20 3:07 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > +config X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER
> > + prompt "Intel Shadow Stacks for user-mode"
> > + def_bool n
> > + depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64
> > + depends on AS_HAS_SHADOW_STACK
> > + select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS
> > + select X86_INTEL_CET
> > + select ARCH_HAS_SHADOW_STACK
>
> I called protection keys: X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>
> AMD recently posted documentation which shows them implementing it as
> well. The "INTEL_" is feeling now like a mistake.
>
> Going forward, we should probably avoid sticking the company name on
> them, if for no other reason than avoiding confusion and/or churn in the
> future.
>
> Shadow stacks, for instance, seem like something that another vendor
> might implement one day. So, let's at least remove the "INTEL_" from
> the config option names themselves. Mentioning Intel in the changelog
> and the Kconfig help text is fine.
Yes, sure.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists