From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC4E374E67 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 22:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791325589; cv=none; b=dD81On/bAjxT27hjSahKK3RocNnFo4eQIL7ZXScywOK9azcqH8dwpGSnYkfJf8NJTwk8ZKq+E8cdDaJ8L9I4ryFC7lfVJl23b39X7XLceXHD4yXPvZVSbov+vQyMBgRU9+B5NwN0ruozadNNX6os1brFHssRFsHSvhgaZGvIIX0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791325589; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7HYniyLwypa3853XIx+ZYr3uZ58vbuaOnCIO/AKCd8c=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=jDZFtWYAGxIt7JRP4NBwV81aNwbovYfKbJyQk50XHp1rQQzsR4IwVrkWgyZsNdwTpI48tV9VtJo5isYg1HWuWoZMIKivruOhVhp1v14gSmkTyTcjzSvnlo3ym1njK+/4497sr0i+x80knLcsm5vDkOJLaLBywEqGJ38+nf2lo7c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=aV9tDhPm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="aV9tDhPm" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32FC71F0089B; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 22:26:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791325588; bh=AT0A5WUyEg1sTd+kHZu6F/WRTdlxyJS68REX/ddlcno=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=aV9tDhPmTL8ux2TVqjRFym4nk3e0eieTI0GYmPtiXL/I/S27/O/2LQrXSzazidjJV qSoq8GCrdBWjlVgPAAcVvOPVP6Ki8wvf7lcrVwPcEoU8wdPMTddxb+DDg4wxFzqw/Q eEu7utJajffc+ZKBiBhB2n7ktjo3nKnuSInjDX7A9dA/Xekwjw2cgSihhq2Niz0yHK OnkfYwN+yuap8Gg88nS9aoBdOq87FFqd3hciOMHYPJHNBuslcw0YE/DDtCVT1bdpAn WQ1qzDHZ/eMxSHghS2P9Y8sV7zAU9ifJiFjVF9/xzAvW+lfkn94u5cVrCprsHEHHOU +w5+vonDd1bEQ== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] arm64: bti: Drop compiler specific BTI checks Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Jeremy Linton" Cc: "Petr Pavlu" , linux-modules@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261006221815.2823252-4-jeremy.linton@arm.com> References: <20261006221815.2823252-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20261006221815.2823252-4-jeremy.linton@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 22:26:27 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-modules@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [High] arm64: Kconfig: GCC 9 BTI code generation defect exposed -- commit 1d7b856a59cb9c3b290733174839f2dcf79cb2c1 Author: Jeremy Linton arm64: bti: Drop compiler specific BTI checks This commit drops compiler-specific version checks for ARM64_BTI_KERNEL, relying on a link pass to correct specific cases of missing BTI landing pads in modules generated by clang and gcc. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 41ce1fd6ca91e..3c9b89fc215c2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -2140,12 +2140,6 @@ config ARM64_BTI_KERNEL > depends on ARM64_BTI > depends on ARM64_PTR_AUTH_KERNEL > depends on CC_HAS_BRANCH_PROT_PAC_RET_BTI > - # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94697 > - depends on !CC_IS_GCC || GCC_VERSION >=3D 100100 [Severity: High] Does the newly added module link script mitigate the specific code generati= on defect from GCC bug 94697? The new script scans for and mitigates missing landing pads for cross-secti= on direct module calls to address GCC bug 106671 and LLVM issue 215547. Howeve= r, GCC bug 94697 is a separate defect present in GCC 9 where the compiler fails to emit BTI landing pads for internal indirect branches to address-taken lo= cal labels. If the script does not rewrite internal indirect branches, dropping this ch= eck will allow GCC 9 to build a BTI-enabled kernel with incorrectly annotated machine code. Will this result in runtime Branch Target exceptions when executing those internal indirect branches? > - # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106671 > - depends on !CC_IS_GCC > - # https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/215547 > - depends on !CC_IS_CLANG || CLANG_VERSION < 210000 > depends on (!FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER || DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS) > help > Build the kernel with Branch Target Identification annotations --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261006221815.2823= 252-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com?part=3D3