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
| ||
|
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