Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d2c864c0-6535-acfd-6c2f-f1175ce8a719@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:34:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        samitolvanen@google.com, npiggin@gmail.com, linux@roeck-us.net,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org, luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com,
        elver@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220222095736.24898-1-ashimida@linux.alibaba.com>
 <YhUMRoLDan7tJRiL@dev-arch.archlinux-ax161>
 <69d351c6-a69d-6ebb-53bc-b46dfe4da08a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <YhZxVwoshSwwJkJO@dev-arch.archlinux-ax161>
From:   Dan Li <ashimida@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <YhZxVwoshSwwJkJO@dev-arch.archlinux-ax161>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2/23/22 09:39, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:50:21AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
>> My intention is to remind users that this is a compiler feature.
>> But since there is also a hint in CC_HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK:
>> +# Supported by clang >= 7.0 or GCC ...
>>
>> Removing the specific compiler here also looks fine to me.
>> Would this look better?
>>
>> "This option enables Shadow Call Stack, which uses a ..."
>>
>> or maybe:
>>
>> "This option enables compiler's Shadow Call Stack, which uses a ..."
> 
> I do not honestly have a strong opinion around removing mention of the
> compiler so either looks fine to me (might be better to say "the
> compiler's Shadow ..." in the second one).
> 

Ah, yes, thanks :)

Dan.