From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
To: "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"debug@rivosinc.com" <debug@rivosinc.com>,
"mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"fweimer@redhat.com" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"vschneid@redhat.com" <vschneid@redhat.com>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"bristot@redhat.com" <bristot@redhat.com>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"jannh@google.com" <jannh@google.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>,
"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v4 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack support
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:31:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <127bba3063b19dd87ae3014f6d3bba342f7a16fb.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <098f5d43-e093-4316-9b86-80833c2b94ec@sirena.org.uk>
On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 16:43 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> Right, it's a small and fairly easily auditable list - it's more
> about
> the app than the double enable which was what I thought your concern
> was. It's a bit annoying definitely and not something we want to do
> in
> general but for something like this where we're adding specific
> coverage
> for API extensions for the feature it seems like a reasonable
> tradeoff.
>
> 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?
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-05 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-28 18:22 [PATCH RFT v4 0/5] fork: Support shadow stacks in clone3() Mark Brown
2023-11-28 18:22 ` [PATCH RFT v4 1/5] mm: Introduce ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK Mark Brown
2023-11-28 18:22 ` [PATCH RFT v4 2/5] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3() Mark Brown
2023-11-28 21:23 ` Deepak Gupta
2023-11-29 13:05 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-05 0:26 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-12-05 15:51 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-05 22:23 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-12-06 18:24 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-28 18:22 ` [PATCH RFT v4 3/5] selftests/clone3: Factor more of main loop into test_clone3() Mark Brown
2023-11-28 18:22 ` [PATCH RFT v4 4/5] selftests/clone3: Allow tests to flag if -E2BIG is a valid error code Mark Brown
2023-11-28 18:22 ` [PATCH RFT v4 5/5] kselftest/clone3: Test shadow stack support Mark Brown
2023-12-05 0:10 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-12-05 15:05 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-05 16:01 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-12-05 16:43 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-05 22:31 ` Edgecombe, Rick P [this message]
2023-12-06 18:42 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-30 19:00 ` [PATCH RFT v4 0/5] fork: Support shadow stacks in clone3() Catalin Marinas
2023-11-30 21:51 ` Mark Brown
2023-11-30 23:37 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2023-12-01 14:00 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-01 11:50 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-12-01 13:47 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-01 17:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-12-01 18:28 ` Mark Brown
2023-12-09 0:59 ` Robert O'Callahan
2023-12-09 1:06 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=127bba3063b19dd87ae3014f6d3bba342f7a16fb.camel@intel.com \
--to=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=debug@rivosinc.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox