[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fde30e5a-f795-46ed-9dd8-9370c4f0aae8@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:47:52 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"Pandey, Sunil K" <sunil.k.pandey@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT v2 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack
support
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:12:46PM -0800, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:11:58PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > It seems like there will be a need for some generic method of checking
> > if shadow stack is enabled. Maybe a more generic compiler
> > intrinsic/builtin or glibc API (something unrelated to SSP)?
> Exposing a new file under procfs would be useful?
> Something like "/proc/sys/vm/user_shadow_stack_supported"
> `map_shadow_stack` can return MAP_FAILED for other reasons.
> I think `kselftests` are fine but I don't want people to pick up this
> as test code and run with it in production :-)
> So kernel providing a way to indicate whether it supports shadow stack
> mappings in user mode via procfs would be useful and arch agnostic.
I can see that might be useful for some higher level code that wants to
tune the size and nothing else. I'd be tempted to do it through adding
a tuneable for the maximum default shadow stack size (x86 currently uses
4G) just so it's *vaguely* useful rather than just a file. I question
the utility of that but just a plain file doesn't feel quite idiomatic.
In any case it feels like it's off topic for this series and should be
done separately.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists