[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54b2c1e5-a99d-42c0-b686-1b5cbb849581@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:41:32 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/37] mm: Define VM_SHADOW_STACK for arm64 when we
support GCS
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:21:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.23 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:
> > @@ -372,7 +372,17 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
> > * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
> > */
> > # define VM_SHADOW_STACK VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > -#else
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
> > +/*
> > + * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar functionality and
> > + * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
> > + */
> > +# define VM_SHADOW_STACK VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > +#endif
> Shouldn't that all just merged with the previous define(s)?
> Also, I wonder if we now want to have CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK or
> similar.
I can certainly update it to do that, I was just trying to fit in with
how the code was written on the basis that there was probably a good
reason for it that had been discussed somewhere. I can send an
incremental patch for this on top of the x86 patches assuming they go in
during the merge window.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists