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
