On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:53:32AM +0000, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > 2018-11-23 Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com> > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64-opts.h (enum stack_protector_guard): New > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_override_options_internal): > > Handle > > and put in error checks for stack protector guard options. > > (aarch64_stack_protect_guard): New. > > (TARGET_STACK_PROTECT_GUARD): Define. > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (UNSPEC_SSP_SYSREG): New. > > (reg_stack_protect_address<mode>): New. > > (stack_protect_set): Adjust for SSP_GLOBAL. > > (stack_protect_test): Likewise. > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.opt (-mstack-protector-guard-reg): New. > > (-mstack-protector-guard): Likewise. > > (-mstack-protector-guard-offset): Likewise. > > * doc/invoke.texi: Document new AArch64 options. > > Any further thoughts or is it just Jakub's comments that I need to > address on this patch ? It looks like the kernel folks have queued > this for the next kernel release and given this is helping the kernel > with a security feature, can we move this forward ?
>From RM POV this is ok in stage4 if you commit it RSN. Both x86 and powerpc have -mstack-protector-guard{,-reg,-offset}= options, x86 even has -mstack-protector-guard-symbol=. So it would be nice if the aarch64 options are compatible with those other arches. Please make sure you don't regress non-glibc SSP support (don't repeat PR85644/PR86832). Jakub