Hi Josh,
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026, at 07:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The following BTI exception was seen when loading a livepatch module:
>
> Internal error: Oops - BTI: 0000000036000001 [#1] SMP
> pstate: 634004c9 (nZCv daIF +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=jc)
> pc : kill_orphaned_pgrp+0x0/0x150
> lr : do_exit+0x498/0xaf0 [livepatch_combined]
>
> The problem is that the patch module's do_exit() is branching to a
> static function in vmlinux using a module PLT veneer (indirect branch),
> but the target function doesn't have a BTI landing pad.
>
> Clang 21+ omits the landing pad for static functions which can only be
> reached by a direct branch. But livepatch modules use klp relocations
> to reference arbitrary kernel symbols, and with
> CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MODULE_REGION_FULL the module is far enough away that
> every call to vmlinux needs a PLT.
>
> Note this problem is actually not specific to livepatch. It's possible
> for any module's .init section to be allocated > 128MB away from its
> .text section. So calls from .init to .text via a PLT can trigger a BTI
> exception when the target function doesn't have a landing pad.
>
> GCC has always omitted the landing pad when possible, so kernel BTI is
> already considered incompatible with GCC since commit c0a454b9044f
> ("arm64/bti: Disable in kernel BTI when cross section thunks are
> broken").
>
> When missing landing pads are detected, allocate a page close to the
> target which can be used to hold BTI veneers which receive PLT veneer
> indirect branches and direct branch to the final target:
>
This does not work for cross-section calls from .init.text to .text.
If .init.text is far away from .text, it is likely because .text
ended up in the 128M 'near' module region, and .init.text did not.
(They tend to end up in direct branching range of each otherwise.)
Given that the module init code is typically small, I don't think
it is safe to assume that allocating a single page close enough to
.text is going to be possible if allocating the space for .init.*
was not.
IOW, the fix I proposed for cross-section calls is still needed
with this approach.
