From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 485D73858426; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:28:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 485D73858426
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691746110;
	bh=64w5dDlrqvlavn1TQ/Q3uYB2+jjNPi8iDsvNK/+/VyE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=YBaY86m7dAFrQKU/UoYHYLEY20pzhC5B1JnO9dfAJnqP4CS8W4TeScFd9n3Vd+3Ws
	 DDR8ve+jU7tmIV9TJ3bEYpH3KtbYfeUPogjJWOf3dfPdr+IXYgJNbkbwrcsQk2Necp
	 4snONIJsG5F7/bSJVg1czOo5jeF1MW37Dc4ts+2w=
From: "wilco at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for
 cross-section direct calls
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:28:28 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-106671-4-xwtKVyhfsA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106671-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106671-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106671

Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |wilco at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Feng Xue from comment #9)
> On some occasions, we may not use the new ld, the kernel-building relies =
on
> its own runtime linker which is used for kernel modules. So I created a
> patch (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626084.html),
> and this provides user another option that could be done at the compiler
> side.

Reducing BTI is important for security. With LTO a binary should only have =
BTI
on functions that are indirectly called. So I don't like the idea of adding
more BTI with a new option - it means we will need a linker optimization to
remove those redundant BTIs (eg. by changing them into NOPs).

Note that branch offsets up to 256MB don't need special veneer handling: one
should place a direct branch about halfway to the destination.

Does Linux do any weird hacks in -fpatchable-function-entry that makes it h=
ard
to use BTI?=