linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d2c864c0-6535-acfd-6c2f-f1175ce8a719@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:34:08 -0800
From:   Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, npiggin@...il.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org, luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com,
        elver@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support



On 2/23/22 09:39, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50:21AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
>> My intention is to remind users that this is a compiler feature.
>> But since there is also a hint in CC_HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK:
>> +# Supported by clang >= 7.0 or GCC ...
>>
>> Removing the specific compiler here also looks fine to me.
>> Would this look better?
>>
>> "This option enables Shadow Call Stack, which uses a ..."
>>
>> or maybe:
>>
>> "This option enables compiler's Shadow Call Stack, which uses a ..."
> 
> I do not honestly have a strong opinion around removing mention of the
> compiler so either looks fine to me (might be better to say "the
> compiler's Shadow ..." in the second one).
> 

Ah, yes, thanks :)

Dan.