> On Sep 14, 2026, at 12:38 AM, Theo Buehler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 12:32:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Sep 14, 2026, at 12:07 AM, Theo Buehler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 10:49:38PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>>>> The reproducer did what you said on an IBT amd64 box and I confirm the
>>>> SIGILL.
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing.
>>>
>>>> But the same reproducer did not SIGILL for me on my BT aarch64 laptop.
>>>> Does it need a different reproducer to trigger it on that platform?
>>>
>>> Apparently. There's clearly bad code with an obvious fix. Does it matter?
>>
>> I’m not totally following your thought process here. What is the diff fixing?
>
> Bad code.
I’m not totally sure. I think we’d need to check if the callers are direct or
indirect.
If they are all direct then I think this diff may introduce new landing pads
that weren’t there before and it broadens the BTI target set unnecessarily.
I suggest that should be checked first. What do you think?
Anyway that’s why I was checking for a reproducer first.
Hope that helps…
