Adding Jeremy directly on cc: as he knows a lot more about the BTI low level bits.
Peter On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 at 21:52, Stephen Gallagher <[email protected]> wrote: > > While attempting to package libuv 1.52.0, I discovered via rpminspect > that a change[1] made since 1.51.0 has introduced some assembly that > leaves GCC unable to determine whether the resulting binaries are > BTI-safe. I am not sure of the best way to approach this. I'm pretty > sure that this specific usage is fine, but I don't particularly want > to use `-Wl,-z,force-bti` because that could end up hiding a truly > unsafe change later on. > > I am not well enough versed in low-level compiler knowledge to figure > out what the alternative would be, though. I don't want to just revert > the upstream patch, because I'm led to believe that this will have a > negative impact on a significant percentage of ARM hardware. > > I would very much appreciate some help figuring this one out. > > [1] https://github.com/libuv/libuv/pull/4863 > > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
