linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 15/20] sslp prctl: arch-agnostic prctl for shadow stack and landing pad instr

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:22:51 -0700
From:   Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 RFC Zisslpcfi 15/20] sslp prctl: arch-agnostic prctl
 for shadow stack and landing pad instr

I am really sorry to have missed this and being late.
I saw your GCS patches. Thanks for picking this up.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:22 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 08:53:44PM -0800, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
> > +int __weak arch_get_shadow_stack_status(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long __user *status)
> > +{
> > +     return -EINVAL;
> > +}
>
> Having looked at this further is there any great reason why the status
> is passed as a pointer?  It seems needless effort.

I was trying to be cleaner here to not overload returned status with a pointer.
You could say that any negative value is an error. I don't have any
favorites here.

-Deepak