On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 16:43 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
.shadow_stack_token = args.shadow_stack_token,I'm not sure why this has to be named "shadow_stack_token" I think that's just confusing and we should just call it "shadow_stack" and be done with it. It's also a bit long of a field name imho.
I'm not hugely attached to the name, if you want to rename that's perfectly fine by me. My thinking was that there's a potential confusion with it being a pointer to the base of the shadow stack by comparison with the existing "stack" but I do agree that the resulting name is quite long and if someone does actually get confused they should discover the problem fairly rapidly in testing. ss_token would shorter but the abbreviation is less clear, whatever name you prefer is fine by me.
Yea the token point here is kind of important. That said, we could probably make up for it with documentation.