On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:12:38PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > Thanks for the info! > > > > > > > > My preference is to keep the api consistent and require a stack_size for > > > shadow stacks as well. > > > > Did you catch that a token can be at a different offsets location on the > > stack > > depending on args passed to map_shadow_stack? So userspace will need > > something > > like the code above, but that adjusts the 'shadow_stack_size' such that the > > kernel looks for the token in the right place. It will be even weirder if > > someone uses clone3 to switch to a stack that has already been used, and > > pivoted > > off of, such that a token was left in the middle of the stack. In that case > > userspace would have to come up with args disconnected from the actual size > > of > > the shadow stack such that the kernel would be cajoled into looking for the > > token in the right place. > > > > A shadow stack size is more symmetric on the surface, but I'm not sure it > > will > > be easier for userspace to handle. So I think we should just have a pointer > > to > > the token. But it will be a usable implementation either way. > > Maybe it's best to let glibc folks decide what is better/more ergonomic for > them.
I agree that it would be better to just have a pointer to the token. My preference would be to avoid having obscure additional arguments that may end up having misleading name or bear some hidden functionality. If kernel is not going to use stack size as such, then users should not have to provide it. Thanks, Yury PS Apologies for delayed reply
