Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:31:05 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <>
To: Sami Tolvanen <>
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 <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)

Hi Sami,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 16:20 Sami Tolvanen <> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 8:57 AM Joe Perches <> wrote:
> > > +#if __has_feature(shadow_call_stack)
> > > +# define __noscs     __attribute__((no_sanitize("shadow-call-stack")))
> >
> > __no_sanitize__
> Sorry, I missed your earlier message about this. I'm following Clang's
> documentation for the attribute:
> Although __no_sanitize__ seems to work too. Is there a particular
> reason to prefer that form over the one in the documentation?

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).



Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.