Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:16:03 -0600
> >
> > Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > > Theo pointed out the NOBTCFI reversal here. Now the reason that we
> > > still see SIGILL despite fixes to the assembly code is because the
> > > -mbranch-protectio
> From: "Theo de Raadt"
> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:16:03 -0600
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > Theo pointed out the NOBTCFI reversal here. Now the reason that we
> > still see SIGILL despite fixes to the assembly code is because the
> > -mbranch-protection=pac-ret option added by the configure
On 06/22 01:41, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Theo pointed out the NOBTCFI reversal here. Now the reason that we
> still see SIGILL despite fixes to the assembly code is because the
> -mbranch-protection=pac-ret option added by the configure script
> actually downgrades our default of enabling both BTI a
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Theo pointed out the NOBTCFI reversal here. Now the reason that we
> still see SIGILL despite fixes to the assembly code is because the
> -mbranch-protection=pac-ret option added by the configure script
> actually downgrades our default of enabling both BTI and PAC to just
Theo pointed out the NOBTCFI reversal here. Now the reason that we
still see SIGILL despite fixes to the assembly code is because the
-mbranch-protection=pac-ret option added by the configure script
actually downgrades our default of enabling both BTI and PAC to just
enabling PAC. So the necessar
