From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50703 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2017 18:33:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 50692 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2017 18:33:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=his X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:33:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: "H.J. Lu" CC: Zack Weinberg , Yu-cheng Yu , "Tsimbalist, Igor V" , GNU C Library Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux/x86: Support shadow stack pointer in setjmp/longjmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20171218162753.GA25026@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00668.txt.bz2 On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, H.J. Lu wrote: > > I don't think you have consensus. You haven't answered most of > > Joseph's questions, and it is not clear to me whether Florian > > considers his objection resolved. This is not a high-priority bugfix. > > I have answered all questions. Please show one question which I haven't > answered. I don't think you've adequately justified having OS-specific versions of all the setjmp/longjmp files, as opposed to having e.g. defined __SHSTK__ && defined SHADOW_STACK_POINTER_OFFSET && defined FEATURE_1_OFFSET conditionals in the OS-independent files (which looks more like the actual condition that should be relevant here). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com