https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Mark Brown from comment #13) > The kernel hasn't got any problem with BTI as far as I am aware - when built > with clang we run the kernel with BTI enabled since clang does just insert a > BTI C at the start of every function, and GCC works fine so long as we don't > get any out of range jumps being generated. The issue is that we don't have > anything to insert veneers in the case where section placement puts static > functions into a distant enough part of memory to need an indirect jump but > GCC has decided to omit the landing pad. The linker has to insert the veneers.
