pcc wrote: > I have checked in with @ahmedbougacha and his feeling is that this is fine as > it requires a bunch of work to opt in, and for places where the security is > important enough that we don't want people using this it's easy enough to > block.
Thanks for checking. > I'm concerned about the interaction of these changes with ptrauth intrinsic > optimizations I took a look and found some cases where we needed to inhibit optimizations. There was no practical effect due to how PFP uses these intrinisics, but I implemented the inhibitions in #133536 and this PR. > the ability for attackers to gain control of the enablement flags. This isn't possible, the symbols are resolved at static link time. See the RFC for more information: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-deactivation-symbols/85556 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133537 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
