[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc40c53d-341f-4e2f-b9a4-49f380a1e926@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:46:44 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....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>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.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>,
"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>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"kees@...nel.org" <kees@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v8 4/9] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 04:29:13PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:51:57AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I change back to parsing the token in the parent but I don't want to end
> > up in a cycle of bouncing between the two implementations depending on
> > who's reviewed the most recent version.
> You and others spent a lot more time looking at shadow stacks than me.
> I'm not necessarily asking to change stuff but rather understand the
> choices made.
I'm a little ambivalent on this - on the one hand accessing the child's
memory is not a thing of great beauty but on the other hand it does
make the !CLONE_VM case more solid. My general instinct is that the
ugliness is less of an issue than the "oh, there's a gap there" stuff
with the !CLONE_VM case since it's more "why are we doing that?" than
"we missed this".
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists