On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:55:07PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > The 11/16/2023 12:33, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:32:06AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > > i guess the tricky case is stack!=0 && shadow_stack_size==0: > > > the user may want a new shadow stack with default size logic, > > > or (with !CLONE_VM || CLONE_VFORK) wants to use the existing > > > shadow stack from the parent. > > If shadow_stack_size is 0 then we're into clone() behaviour and doing > > the default/implicit handling which is to do exactly what the above > > describes. > to be clear does clone with flags==CLONE_VM|CLONE_VFORK always > use the parent shadow stack independently of the stack argument? !CLONE_VM rather than CLONE_VM but yes, that's what the clone() and hence current clone3() behaviour is here. > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. There are mechanisms for disabling this...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
