On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:53:54 GMT, Florian Weimer <fwei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I don't agree that this is incorrect, at least not for the stated reason. >> The flag switches on a protection mechanism that guards against ROP attacks. >> To my reading that does not imply it guards against all such attacks, merely >> that this is the nature of the protection it offers. >> >> The description might still be considered incorrect for an unrelated reason. >> Its use of the adjectival phrase ROP based constitutes a transferred >> epithet, conflating the symptom with the medicine. In other words, the >> protection offered is not ROP based i.e. does not rely on an ROP technique. >> What it does is protect against ROP attacks. So, I'd suggest rewording to >> >> "Enable protection of branches against ROP attacks". >> >> Florian, if you want to argue for rewording that to "Enable protection of >> branches against some categories of ROP attacks" or some other equivalently >> qualified variant please feel free to make a case. However, I don't think >> see any need to add that rider, nor any precedent in any of the other short >> descriptions provided in globals.hpp. > > I did mean the description, not the flag name. Yes, understood. I too was talking about the description even though I introduced my comment by talking about what the flag does. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6334
