On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 09:27:28AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 7:23 AM Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 03:18:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026, at 14:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026, at 11:44, Will Deacon wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 09:41:35AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Sure, but let's replace this with a link to a bug report in llvm's > > > >>> issue tracker? > > > >> > > > >> Yes, please! I can apply the patch once we have the bug number. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I can look into that. > > > > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/215547 > > > > Thanks, Ard. I've ended up with the patch below. > > What's the extent that HAVE_LIVEPATCH will be used? > > Does this penalize kernels built with BTI in favor of HAVE_LIVEPATCH? > > For example, with my Android hat on, if we have a kernel that's built > with ARM64_BTI_KERNEL=y, and _dont_ use HAVE_LIVEPATCH, we're going to > turn off BTI for a feature we're not using? But maybe we _do_ intend > to use HAVE_LIVEPATCH, and my assumption was wrong?
The problem isn't specific to livepatch, livepatch just makes it easier to hit. -- Josh
