On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 14:38 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 05:27:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 08:57:59PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:

quoted

quoted

To make sure we are on the same page: What I'm saying is say we
do
something like add another flag SHADOW_STACK_SET_MARKER that
means add
a marker at the end (making the token off by one frame). Then you
can
just reject any flags != (SHADOW_STACK_SET_MARKER |
SHADOW_STACK_SET_TOKEN) value, and leave the rest of the code as
is. So
not really implementing anything new. 

quoted

quoted

Then x86 could use the same flag meanings if/when it implements
end
markers. If it doesn't seem worth it, it's not a big deal on my
end.
Just seemed that they were needlessly diverging.

quoted

Yes, my understanding of the flags is the same.  I'll definitely
implement omitting the cap since there's an actual use case for
that
(extending an existing stack, it's marginally safer to not have any
opportunity to pivot into the newly allocated region).

BTW are you planning to repost the series for this release?  We're
almost at -rc5 which is pretty late and I didn't see anything yet. 

There were a few patches I posted on top of the last series after your
comments, but I wasn't planning on reposting the whole thing. Why do
you ask? Just trying to figure out the best version to base off of?

It
looks like there's a branch in tip that's getting some updates but
it's
not getting merged for -next.

Hmm, not sure why it's not in -next anymore. I'll look into that.
Thanks for pointing it out.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel