# Re: \[PATCH v23 00/28\] Control-flow Enforcement: Shadow Stack

- From: Yu, Yu-cheng \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-03-19 21:44:19 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2021/03/6308533
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-doc/2021/03/6303369/t.md

```text
On 3/16/2021 2:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:10:26AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> Control-flow Enforcement (CET) is a new Intel processor feature that blocks
>> return/jump-oriented programming attacks.  Details are in "Intel 64 and
>> IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual" [1].
>>
>> CET can protect applications and the kernel.  This series enables only
>> application-level protection, and has three parts:
>>
>>    - Shadow stack [2],
>>    - Indirect branch tracking [3], and
>>    - Selftests [4].
>
> CET is marketing; afaict SS and IBT are 100% independent and there's no
> reason what so ever to have them share any code, let alone a Kconfig
> knob.
> > In fact, I think all of this would improve is you remove the CET name
> from all of this entirely. Put this series under CONFIG_X86_SHSTK (or
> _SS) and use CONFIG_X86_IBT for the other one.
>
> Similarly with the .c file.
>
> All this CET business is just pure confusion.
>

What about this, we bring back CONFIG_X86_SHSTK and CONFIG_X86_IBT.
For the CET name itself, can we change it to CFE (Control Flow Enforcement), or just CF?

In signal handling, ELF header parsing and arch_prctl(), shadow stack and IBT pretty much share the same code.  It is better not to split them into two sets of files.

Thanks,
Yu-cheng
```