On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:31:09PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 16:43 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > If the x86 toolchain/libc support is widely enough deployed (or you > > just > > don't mind any missing coverage) we could use the toolchain support > > there and only have the manual enable for arm64, it'd be inconsistent > > but not wildly so. > I'm hoping there is not too much of a gap before the glibc support > starts filtering out. Long term, elf bit enabling is probably the right > thing for the generic tests. Short term, manual enabling is ok with me > if no one else minds. Maybe we could add my "don't do" list as a > comment if we do manual enabling? Probably good to write it up somewhere, yes - it'd also be useful for anyone off doing their own non-libc things. It did cross my mind to try to make a document for the generic bit of the ABI for shadow stacks. > I'll have to check your new series, but I also wonder if we could cram > the manual enabling and status checking pieces into some headers and > not have to have "if x86" "if arm" logic in the test themselves. I did think about that but was worried that a header might encourage more users doing the hacky thing. OTOH it would mean the arch specific tests could share the header though so perhaps you're right, I'll take a look.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
