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: <20251030185725.GC2989771@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:57:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.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 11:31:38AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:

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

About half of my systems have CET, but I just checked, none of them
seem to actually use userspace shadow stacks.

AFAICT Debian hasn't build their packages with this stuff on.

But yeah, thanks for reminding me, we should definitely build a shstk
unwinder.