[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4a77a1b-ae13-4071-98e8-25235e8058b7@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:17:16 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
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
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 02:22:51PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> 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.
OK, thanks - I changed it to treat negative codes as errors, I'll leave
things like that.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists