> -----Original Message----- > From: Tsimbalist, Igor V > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:35 PM > To: 'Richard Biener' <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tsimbalist, Igor V > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tsimbalist, Igor V > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:43 PM > > To: 'Richard Biener' <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Tsimbalist, Igor V > > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 3:53 PM > > > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > > Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V > > > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:43 PM > > > >> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > > > >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > > >> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V > > > >> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> > Part#1. Add generic part for Intel CET enabling. > > > >> > > > > >> > The spec is available at > > > >> > > > > >> > https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/4d/2a/co > > > >> > nt ro l-f low-enforcement-technology-preview.pdf
<..skipped..> > > > >> I think 'notrack' is somewhat unspecific of a name, what > > > >> prevented you to use 'nocet'? > > > > > > > > Actually it's specific. The HW will have a prefix with exactly > > > > this name and > > > the same meaning. And I think, what is more important, 'track/notrack' > > > gives better semantic for a user. CET is a name bound with Intel > > > specific technology. > > > > > > But 'tracking' something is quite unspecific. Tracking for what? > > > 'no_verify_cf' (aka do not verify control flow) maybe? > > > > The name just has to suggest the right semantic. 'no_verify_cf' is > > good, let's use it unless different name appears. > I have renamed all newly introduced function and macro names to use > 'noverify_cf'. But I still keep the attribute name as 'notrack'. Historically > the > attribute name follows the public CET specification, which uses 'no-track > prefix' wording. Is it ok to keep such attribute name? Here is an updated proposal about option name and attribute name. The new option has values to let a user to choose what control-flow protection to activate. -fcf-protection=[full|branch|return|none] branch - do control-flow protection for indirect jumps and calls return - do control-flow protection for function returns full - alias to specify both branch + return none - turn off protection. This value is needed when/if cf-protection is turned on by default by driver in future Attribute name is the most tough one. Here are several names to evaluate: 'nocf_verify' or 'nocf_check', or to be more specific and to mimic option name 'nocf_branch_verify' or 'nocf_branch_check'. I would prefer 'nocf_check' as it applies to functions and function pointers so it's definitely related to a branch and it's a smaller one. If you ok with the new proposal I'll implement it in a general parts (code, documentation and tests) and resend these patches for review. Thanks, Igor
