On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

+		.shadow_stack_token	= args.shadow_stack_token,

quoted

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.

Bike shed: shstk_token?


-- 
Kees Cook