Re: CET shadow stack app compatibility

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 05:04:40PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > ELF bits should not, must not, be called CET. API, not CET, Compiler
> > features, also not CET.
> 
> So the arch_prctl()s can't be shared between shadow stack and IBT? They
> don't have to be, but this is a new thing after a fair amount of
> earlier discussion.

I would very strongly suggest IBT not use that interface and instead we
follow ARM64 BTI's lead -- such that application developers don't go
insane trying to use two nearly identical solutions.

I mean, the toolchain folks made a godawefull mess of things, but we
don't have to.