2025-04-23T20:16:58-07:00, Deepak Gupta :
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 11:56:44AM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>2025-03-14T14:39:29-07:00, Deepak Gupta :
>>> As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
>>> syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
>>> e
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 11:56:44AM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2025-03-14T14:39:29-07:00, Deepak Gupta :
As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
existing mmap() and madvise() syscalls do not map entire
2025-03-14T14:39:29-07:00, Deepak Gupta :
> As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
> syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
> existing mmap() and madvise() syscalls do not map entirely well onto the
> security requirements for shadow stack m
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:50:35PM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:39 AM Deepak Gupta wrote:
As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
existing mmap() and madvise() syscalls do not map
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:39 AM Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
> As discussed extensively in the changelog for the addition of this
> syscall on x86 ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall") the
> existing mmap() and madvise() syscalls do not map entirely well onto the
> security requirements for s
