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 50E47CA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:15:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C421208C0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:15:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="cRlJ8go8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732088AbfJ1QPN (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:15:13 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f66.google.com ([209.85.217.66]:39329 "EHLO mail-vs1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729469AbfJ1QPN (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:15:13 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f66.google.com with SMTP id y129so6706904vsc.6 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:15:13 -0700 (PDT) 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=BrKuJHtOFwbymcfpjNKur4M1YpdsklOmA7eaBOmTg/0xzKI4Fj1q3gitgZFEI0UeK5 uPx9kD3XQXc2nWdRFQO+beN5ZmshhA/mlehqXr8RJSSII9b2i4DRCMIQ2shXKj2JgzfN aiDsT96UubTOo2TmcxWi6dlTmCQwRbqXblSgLOMULTYtMkwbfIH+OWOWkeQs0zjmEslu k92koOA5xIOw1c8sk7Epq3XbOXIQGi70jervQODv0M2PeWa30hJolcNzgDc7fdeaTR/e 2PXOlR7Qs0nE+2Xr1b8QbtuIazwy1STv8yfKP4PYv57gTjItyLL0+tTsbMYqGPPFHGZ0 QHow== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXn2fPSJQOdjXzLCVnAxtAqLQGEjDwABFIO9GFVeOCnOsjg9Yza ZdoaYmp6N95VJxz1Yk64XCzTKp2QR+vs75BCqu/w1g== 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" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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