On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 04:43:22PM +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.
Bike shed: shstk_token?