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=-8.4 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,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 7AFC6CA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4B0E208C0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="cRlJ8go8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C4B0E208C0 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-17137-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 7931 invoked by uid 550); 28 Oct 2019 16:15:25 -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 7913 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2019 16:15:24 -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=NAeDGv4mmTdcJjmFC/Y5EqwPqrlxkNMDKmTxGtNGkZY=; b=cRlJ8go8Gwg5sHkB7ZS3FAbbXtnMD/tbE+zSlh/I1r1/OC/G4k2GVu3K4ZQIVtSesK qWj5vEzyZr/kwqbQ/BTQz27rlFGtYiadnB4BjwV9Aanq9y6mIcNlZgE0TDCUZmzdfMAK pYXldXOHSP6bQqOp2tqseN1pN+uwLR+zn/EQU53d0ejxptXvTV4EloD/dPmL0glR+KIS nM5OLYggHmVr1GJPpWaCLHPpHehzf5Xxk2CL48eRGzuTedh2dhf7I58eB/9um9Q2ykj/ fH8V56DN6X6u8meTksQpmCSDkwZZFwfBU/9m+m5LLJy37fUNh5yE52TZE9xDBcF8G6ck eKDg== 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=NAeDGv4mmTdcJjmFC/Y5EqwPqrlxkNMDKmTxGtNGkZY=; b=RnOAzu2Qsah3uwse3aqnOsy7sxSy8Oo7whhvVd2ZtdgOPevAYl6gWqqVnRtuiaTwyO nyQt8FSZ4lEvYooy/ueWsO4fSOKBTpCjbavASXa/JYe5+OOX5QXOh6sG8WYBbNsC36Rp 3wJuAGe5T9dQi7jgv2rK1xmqjP9VDj+S/Yb2Fz6iJulsyMTkEQCpQlGC9r8KbBFzGlks rax74IoNoLKo2AajrAArYWvz8KpBEfJv2rR0x2J5NBKzwng4KH0tGfHA5uwdXcwg/TsQ ZpJFINtFUSGfytRZa8J7r5ON44zBqkmfbxAjuIo5s1oFknJc5NUUlKB9zt2kGh62LCQQ lSKA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7X6EN/xPnfCX07C2vWQjN0WehQKq//+RYAvkLhFF1c8VrquLN 6fnXX/xuQAkSF4wo8QSiKEWmWdCiinjHYnb+WDJgdg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyErnDNeReEYHXLOlOQvJxZB1LCeRqzFRFTtzuu+yjPbfij2oddf0msvyrSOjimXhfQmIZ/10I+XmQJOMeVmmI= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ffc7:: with SMTP id w7mr9278938vsq.15.1572279312128; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:15:12 -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: From: Sami Tolvanen Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:15:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS) To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Catalin Marinas , Dave Martin , Jann Horn , Joe Perches , Kees Cook , Kernel Hardening , LKML , Laura Abbott , Mark Rutland , Masahiro Yamada , Masami Hiramatsu , Nick Desaulniers , Steven Rostedt , Will Deacon , clang-built-linux , linux-arm-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:31 AM Miguel Ojeda wrote: > We decided to do it like that when I introduced compiler_attributes.h. > > Given it is hidden behind a definition, we don't care about which one we use internally; therefore the idea was to avoid clashes as much as possible with other names/definitions/etc. > > The syntax is supported in the compilers we care about (for docs on attributes, the best reference is GCC's by the way). Got it, thank you for explaining. I'll change this to __no_sanitize__ in v3 since Clang seems to be happy with either version. Sami