https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
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 hard
to use BTI?
