[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f374415d5738b8c69031cf57f27f4351045993d4.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 15:53:22 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "brauner@...nel.org"
<brauner@...nel.org>
CC: "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>, "shuah@...nel.org"
<shuah@...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>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"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>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "kees@...nel.org"
<kees@...nel.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com"
<hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>, "yury.khrustalev@....com"
<yury.khrustalev@....com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"wilco.dijkstra@....com" <wilco.dijkstra@....com>, "bsegall@...gle.com"
<bsegall@...gle.com>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 4/8] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 16:43 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > + .shadow_stack_token = args.shadow_stack_token,
>
> > I'm not sure why this has to be named "shadow_stack_token" I think
> > that's just confusing and we should just call it "shadow_stack" and be
> > done with it. It's also a bit long of a field name imho.
>
> I'm not hugely attached to the name, if you want to rename that's
> perfectly fine by me. My thinking was that there's a potential
> confusion with it being a pointer to the base of the shadow stack by
> comparison with the existing "stack" but I do agree that the resulting
> name is quite long and if someone does actually get confused they should
> discover the problem fairly rapidly in testing. ss_token would shorter
> but the abbreviation is less clear, whatever name you prefer is fine by
> me.
Yea the token point here is kind of important. That said, we could probably make
up for it with documentation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists