From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78381 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2017 09:58:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 78317 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2017 09:58:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:58:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCD7CF5CE; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:58:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com DCD7CF5CE Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com DCD7CF5CE Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-116-153.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.153]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D257417F3B; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: RFC: Update x86 psABI to support shadow stac To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: gnu-gabi@sourceware.org, IA32 System V Application Binary Interface , "x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com" , "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" References: <53356291-bb6d-3a69-3dc7-4a1f011942bd@redhat.com> From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <4a0a3d70-ff4b-9c99-810a-4537d5415594@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:58:45 +0000 (UTC) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-q2/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On 06/22/2017 08:44 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> The responsibilities for compliance are split between caller and callee, >> which can live in different shared objects. I think it would be prudent >> to formulate the requirement in such a way that compliance can be >> checked by looking at one DSO in isolation. > What do you mean by it? I suggest to word the ABI requirement in such a way that it is possible to verify if a shared object complies with it isolation, independent of how its functions are called. Thanks, Florian