Re: [PATCH v5 06/27] x86/cet: Control protection exception handler

On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 19:44 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:

That subject needs a verb:

Subject: [PATCH v5 06/27] x86/cet: Add control protection exception handler

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 08:15:02AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:

quoted

A control protection exception is triggered when a control flow transfer
attempt violated shadow stack or indirect branch tracking constraints.
For example, the return address for a RET instruction differs from the
safe copy on the shadow stack; or a JMP instruction arrives at a non-
ENDBR instruction.

The control protection exception handler works in a similar way as the
general protection fault handler.

Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <redacted>
---
 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S          |  2 +-
 arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h       |  3 ++
 arch/x86/kernel/idt.c              |  4 ++
 arch/x86/kernel/signal_compat.c    |  2 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/traps.c            | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h |  3 +-
 6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

A *lot* of style problems here. Please use checkpatch and then common
sense to check your patches before sending. All those below are valid,
AFAICT:

WARNING: function definition argument 'struct pt_regs *' should also have an
identifier name
#76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81:
+dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long);

WARNING: function definition argument 'long' should also have an identifier
name
#76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81:
+dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long);

Yes, I was not sure if the addition should follow the existing style (which does
not have identifier names).  What do you think is right?

Thanks,
Yu-cheng