On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 19:44 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > That subject needs a verb: > > Subject: [PATCH v5 06/27] x86/cet: Add control protection exception handler > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 08:15:02AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > A control protection exception is triggered when a control flow transfer > > attempt violated shadow stack or indirect branch tracking constraints. > > For example, the return address for a RET instruction differs from the > > safe copy on the shadow stack; or a JMP instruction arrives at a non- > > ENDBR instruction. > > > > The control protection exception handler works in a similar way as the > > general protection fault handler. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 2 +- > > arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h | 3 ++ > > arch/x86/kernel/idt.c | 4 ++ > > arch/x86/kernel/signal_compat.c | 2 +- > > arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h | 3 +- > > 6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > A *lot* of style problems here. Please use checkpatch and then common > sense to check your patches before sending. All those below are valid, > AFAICT: > > WARNING: function definition argument 'struct pt_regs *' should also have an > identifier name > #76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81: > +dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long); > > WARNING: function definition argument 'long' should also have an identifier > name > #76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81: > +dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long); Yes, I was not sure if the addition should follow the existing style (which does not have identifier names). What do you think is right? Thanks, Yu-cheng
