linux-kernel - Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

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]

Message-ID: <aQOvCugzYe/2DcNW@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:31:38 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Fangrui Song <maskray@...rceware.org>,
	linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 06:07:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:53:13AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > IMNSHO the whole sframe effort is misguided because all the major ISAs do have
> > shadow stack hardware support now which is generally a better option. 
> > It would be better to invest effort in deploying that widely.
> 
> It's going to take a *considerable* time for the hardware support to
> become standard.

Optimizing for the past instead of the future?

Not on x86 at least. All my x86 systems have it, except for a few old
skylakes.

-Andi