Re: [PATCH] arm64/module: Fix livepatch BTI exceptions with Clang 21+

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 09:41:35AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 9:39 AM Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 06:12:10PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2026, at 17:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > In which case I think to properly support BTI going forward we would
> > > > need two "veneers"?  Either that or remove BTI kernel support
> > > > altogether.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, it seems we did not argue our case convincingly: their assumption
> > > that veneers/PLTs can be placed within -/+ 128M of their target does not
> > > hold for us. But I don't think it holds for .text sections larger than
> > > 128M either, so I'm not convinced their reasoning is sound even for the
> > > general case.
> > >
> > > I suppose we could special-case the PLT logic to use direct branches
> > > where possible, which would probably catch most of these (assuming
> > > .text and .init.text tend to end up close to each other also for KLP
> > > modules)
> > >
> > > For the remaining cases, we'd indeed need a second veneer at the callee
> > > end (i.e., inside .text in this case) that is emitted when resolving a
> > > cross-section indirect call to a function that lacks the BTI landing
> > > pad. But that would be its sole purpose, so I don't think we should go
> > > down this route. Instead, the 'address taken' check should include 'called
> > > directly from a different section'. Emitting veneers to work around a
> > > compiler optimization is just plain silly.
> > >
> > > I'll try and poke people on the Clang side of things to revisit this.
> > > I guess that leaves kernel BTI broken for the foreseeable future but so
> > > be it.
> >
> > Ok, so for now I suppose we need something like so?
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > index 06b30924509ac..972988238f367 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > @@ -2117,6 +2117,8 @@ config ARM64_BTI_KERNEL
> >         depends on !CC_IS_GCC || GCC_VERSION >= 100100
> >         # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
> >         depends on !CC_IS_GCC
> > +       # https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7af2b51e761f49974a64c3009882239cea618f2a
> 
> Sure, but let's replace this with a link to a bug report in llvm's
> issue tracker? I meet with Arm's toolchain team (of which Simon
> is...on or adjacent to). I can bring this up then.

Yes, please! I can apply the patch once we have the bug number.

Will