From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6C8CA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 404D421721 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="eSmzhzPZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 404D421721 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-17135-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 15972 invoked by uid 550); 28 Oct 2019 15:20:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 15951 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2019 15:20:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZU5xUNm1kaCHgnGkxHeR/Mx1+L5fbEGEQysvhMTguc4=; b=eSmzhzPZfT7cUe+QHJCBCLOHsdk+EZDEV9fLq/VonLuESD+7AlLYYPrnI17uBv2SBg 3TD4dUHaoFk8FpSe0MeKqGFrA0VaN0FxWa+wsTCO0XEBDSOfCQvENAl6OX1Rb3jrp+n3 JPkuxbGtWe1J+gHHSaQORWLI7cXq3klsPNWOMsgNXu6Fg8nKxysP4iyA0VydqPQgY0JL N7EJLUpZITruMx0JSqETf+bX1nMYrqvrsSGAmoFxsqJMadIf4Q/uhe6KZosWwtiY9rRW 8EGaI4kC5ExBIAoyg7rWysQrcycy0XTYf6yCBvrKZ1/2CBM7WNaipneRGQ1wmCRv9UKA damA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZU5xUNm1kaCHgnGkxHeR/Mx1+L5fbEGEQysvhMTguc4=; b=ZbAKrXjajb1UbdWFxXctqbFZiswNWWYo1XdGzM+4mOLpSbTDDuuMura2dY/URcD97e 3y6RgARuYXkCdFKWdHuTc+fXynR8Dz5YoiE9DAgy8iX+DkruIyjqqoJfTkHkI0kP+lwj Kat7JMawHj889GXvZp5/bUqBcd8oRSjPVDItUHccz33HLffZ04LR7p4s55M7/+vA/Q0w /vxksvAKY+XKlXzxH2i6UP99Ae5m+x0GV9J4ZizrJ+OSqWIhSaDTdBgNd3feluNDzo16 zUWgU0MPEpLdEE77NK+2x1oZ6o290cpIg/gDWG8ome0yy9M0LCMCYn62DtR11bkPBobm Za4A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1OnimiwaoSrZEe4jnF0a6NdPilY5iLNnNMNcK39cOkmopVms+ k8V5JdKbU430AVuQryRLaHJgkGo6uFMtJAD1gTQm0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzRltIrku2LXVeEFCHJc2YFi4Md1SIaeyW4mfj+XUvo+qC8pGuc9cXtasR/G76UI8ICFDNLc3Y6k3eXZlTO+J8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed8b:: with SMTP id d11mr8849195vsp.104.1572276001000; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:20:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191018161033.261971-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20191024225132.13410-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20191024225132.13410-6-samitolvanen@google.com> <2c13c39acb55df5dbb0d40c806bb1d7dc4bde2ae.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <2c13c39acb55df5dbb0d40c806bb1d7dc4bde2ae.camel@perches.com> From: Sami Tolvanen Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:19:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS) To: Joe Perches Cc: Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Ard Biesheuvel , Dave Martin , Kees Cook , Laura Abbott , Mark Rutland , Nick Desaulniers , Jann Horn , Miguel Ojeda , Masahiro Yamada , clang-built-linux , Kernel Hardening , linux-arm-kernel , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Joe, On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 8:57 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > +#if __has_feature(shadow_call_stack) > > +# define __noscs __attribute__((no_sanitize("shadow-call-stack"))) > > __no_sanitize__ Sorry, I missed your earlier message about this. I'm following Clang's documentation for the attribute: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html#attribute-no-sanitize-shadow-call-stack Although __no_sanitize__ seems to work too. Is there a particular reason to prefer that form over the one in the documentation? Sami