Re: [PATCH RFT v4 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack support

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1339 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:31:09PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 16:43 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If the x86 toolchain/libc support is widely enough deployed (or you
> > just
> > don't mind any missing coverage) we could use the toolchain support
> > there and only have the manual enable for arm64, it'd be inconsistent
> > but not wildly so.

> I'm hoping there is not too much of a gap before the glibc support
> starts filtering out. Long term, elf bit enabling is probably the right
> thing for the generic tests. Short term, manual enabling is ok with me
> if no one else minds. Maybe we could add my "don't do" list as a
> comment if we do manual enabling?

Probably good to write it up somewhere, yes - it'd also be useful for
anyone off doing their own non-libc things.  It did cross my mind to
try to make a document for the generic bit of the ABI for shadow stacks.

> I'll have to check your new series, but I also wonder if we could cram
> the manual enabling and status checking pieces into some headers and
> not have to have "if x86" "if arm" logic in the test themselves.

I did think about that but was worried that a header might encourage
more users doing the hacky thing.  OTOH it would mean the arch specific
tests could share the header though so perhaps you're right, I'll take a
look.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]