On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 03:56:50PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 14:43 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > Any thoughts on the questions at the end of this mail? > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7a4c97f68347d4188286c543cdccaa12577cdb9e.camel@xxxxxxxxx/ Those are: > Someday when the x86 side is finally upstream I have a manpage for > map_shadow_stack. Any differences on the arm side would need to be > documented, but I'm not sure why there should be any differences. Like, > why not use the same flags? Or have a new flag for token+end marker > that x86 can use as well? Ah, it wasn't clear to me that this was a question rather than just open decisions about the eventual manpage. Looking again I think what you're asking about is that I see that at some point in development I lost the SHADOW_STACK_SET_TOKEN flag which x86 has. I suspect that was a rebasing issue as it wasn't a deliberate decision, there's no reason we couldn't have that. Other than that and the fact that we add both a stack swap token and a top of stack marker I'm not aware of any differences.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
