On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 15:12 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:03:17PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > Btw, > > pls try to trim your replies as I need ot scroll through pages of > quoted > text to find the response. Sure sorry. [...] > > > If the default SSP value logic is too hidden, what about some > > clearer > > code and comments, like this? > > The problem with this function is that it needs to return three > things: > > * success: > ** 0 > or > ** shadow stack address > * failure: due to allocation. > > How about this below instead? (totally untested ofc): Ah, I see what you were saying now. It looks like it will work to me if you think it is better stylistically.
