lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 11/37] mm: Define VM_SHADOW_STACK for arm64 when we support GCS
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:21:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.08.23 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:

> > @@ -372,7 +372,17 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void *objp);
> > * having a PAGE_SIZE guard gap.
> > */
> > # define VM_SHADOW_STACK VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > -#else
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS)
> > +/*
> > + * arm64's Guarded Control Stack implements similar functionality and
> > + * has similar constraints to shadow stacks.
> > + */
> > +# define VM_SHADOW_STACK VM_HIGH_ARCH_5
> > +#endif

> Shouldn't that all just merged with the previous define(s)?

> Also, I wonder if we now want to have CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SHADOW_STACK or
> similar.

I can certainly update it to do that, I was just trying to fit in with
how the code was written on the basis that there was probably a good
reason for it that had been discussed somewhere. I can send an
incremental patch for this on top of the x86 patches assuming they go in
during the merge window.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-22 17:42    [W:0.120 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site