Re: [PATCH v5 06/27] x86/cet: Control protection exception handler

[Yu-cheng Yu]

On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 19:44 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> That subject needs a verb:
> 
> Subject: [PATCH v5 06/27] x86/cet: Add control protection exception handler
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 08:15:02AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > A control protection exception is triggered when a control flow transfer
> > attempt violated shadow stack or indirect branch tracking constraints.
> > For example, the return address for a RET instruction differs from the
> > safe copy on the shadow stack; or a JMP instruction arrives at a non-
> > ENDBR instruction.
> > 
> > The control protection exception handler works in a similar way as the
> > general protection fault handler.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S          |  2 +-
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h       |  3 ++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/idt.c              |  4 ++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/signal_compat.c    |  2 +-
> >  arch/x86/kernel/traps.c            | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h |  3 +-
> >  6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> A *lot* of style problems here. Please use checkpatch and then common
> sense to check your patches before sending. All those below are valid,
> AFAICT:
> 
> WARNING: function definition argument 'struct pt_regs *' should also have an
> identifier name
> #76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81:
> +dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long);
> 
> WARNING: function definition argument 'long' should also have an identifier
> name
> #76: FILE: arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h:81:
> +dotraplinkage void do_control_protection(struct pt_regs *, long);

Yes, I was not sure if the addition should follow the existing style (which does
not have identifier names).  What do you think is right?

Thanks,
Yu-cheng