On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:55:07PM +0000, Szabolcs.Nagy@xxxxxxx wrote: > The 11/16/2023 12:33, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:32:06AM +0000, Szabolcs.Nagy@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > i guess the tricky case is stack!=0 && shadow_stack_size==0: > > > the user may want a new shadow stack with default size logic, > > > or (with !CLONE_VM || CLONE_VFORK) wants to use the existing > > > shadow stack from the parent. > > If shadow_stack_size is 0 then we're into clone() behaviour and doing > > the default/implicit handling which is to do exactly what the above > > describes. > to be clear does clone with flags==CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK always > use the parent shadow stack independently of the stack argument? !CLONE_VM rather than CLONE_VM but yes, that's what the clone() and hence current clone3() behaviour is here. > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. There are mechanisms for disabling this...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
