On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 08:55 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/29/20 3:07 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > > +config X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER > > + prompt "Intel Shadow Stacks for user-mode" > > + def_bool n > > + depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 > > + depends on AS_HAS_SHADOW_STACK > > + select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS > > + select X86_INTEL_CET > > + select ARCH_HAS_SHADOW_STACK > > I called protection keys: X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > > AMD recently posted documentation which shows them implementing it as > well. The "INTEL_" is feeling now like a mistake. > > Going forward, we should probably avoid sticking the company name on > them, if for no other reason than avoiding confusion and/or churn in the > future. > > Shadow stacks, for instance, seem like something that another vendor > might implement one day. So, let's at least remove the "INTEL_" from > the config option names themselves. Mentioning Intel in the changelog > and the Kconfig help text is fine. Yes, sure. Yu-cheng
