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? -- Kees Cook
