On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 05:27:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 08:57:59PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > 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. It looks like there's a branch in tip that's getting some updates but it's not getting merged for -next.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
