On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:52:02 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
>> Hamlin Li has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> update header files for arm
>
> in progress...
Hi @Hamlin-Li , thanks for your work.
I tried to run benchmarks,
[FloatMaxVe
This patch enables BTI branch protection for runtime part on Linux/aarch64
platform.
Motivation
1. Since Fedora 33, glibc+kernel are PAC/BTI enabled by default. User-level
packages can gain additional hardening by compiling with the GCC/Clang flag
`-mbranch-protection=flag`. See [1].
2. In JD
64/threadLS_linux_aarch64.S
>
>
> Task-2: add `.note.gnu.property` section for these assembly files
>
> As mentioned in Motivation-2 part, `-mbranch-protection=standard` is passed
> to compile c/c++ files but these assembly files are missed.
>
> In this patch, we also pass
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 10:40:09 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
> This patch enables BTI branch protection for runtime part on Linux/aarch64
> platform.
>
> Motivation
>
> 1. Since Fedora 33, glibc+kernel are PAC/BTI enabled by default. User-level
> packages can gain additional harden
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:27:00 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Can you explain why we want to support PAC without BTI? Would anyone use such
> a config?
Thanks for reviewing @theRealAph .
Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. Do you mean why we currently
only support PAC? PAC is mandatory f
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Fei Gao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three
64/threadLS_linux_aarch64.S
>
>
> Task-2: add `.note.gnu.property` section for these assembly files
>
> As mentioned in Motivation-2 part, `-mbranch-protection=standard` is passed
> to compile c/c++ files but these assembly files are missed.
>
> In this patch, we also pass
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 02:26:10 GMT, Eric Liu wrote:
>> Fei Gao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:32:28 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
>> This patch enables BTI branch protection for runtime part on Linux/aarch64
>> platform.
>>
>> Motivation
>>
>> 1. Since Fedora 33, glibc+kernel are PAC/BTI enabled by default. User-level
>>
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 09:25:55 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> What is the effect on JNI? Is there full interworking with
> non-branch-protected libraries?
@theRealAph, thanks for your review!
It should be no problem to have libjvm.so built with BTI and a JNI library
built without BTI.
BTI marks cod
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 09:25:55 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Fei Gao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains five
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:16:28 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can you help to review the patch? Previously it's
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18605.
>> This pr is based on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20781.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ## Test
>> ### tests:
>> * test/jdk/jdk/incubator/v
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 10:40:09 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
> This patch enables BTI branch protection for runtime part on Linux/aarch64
> platform.
>
> Motivation
>
> 1. Since Fedora 33, glibc+kernel are PAC/BTI enabled by default. User-level
> packages can gain additional harden
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:32:28 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
>> This patch enables BTI branch protection for runtime part on Linux/aarch64
>> platform.
>>
>> Motivation
>>
>> 1. Since Fedora 33, glibc+kernel are PAC/BTI enabled by default. User-level
>>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:00:37 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can you help to review the patch? Previously it's
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18605.
>> This pr is based on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20781.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ## Test
>> ### tests:
>> * test/jdk/jdk/incubator/v
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:28:36 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can you help to review the patch? Previously it's
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18605.
>> This pr is based on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20781.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ## Test
>> ### tests:
>> * test/jdk/jdk/incubator/v
This patch fixes a typo introduced in
[JDK-8353217](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/130b0cdaa6604da47a893e5425547acf3d5253f4),
which incorrectly disabled SVE vector math symbols. As a result, some vector
math test cases such as `jdk/incubator/vector/Double256VectorTests.java` threw
except
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:09:45 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> This patch fixes a typo introduced in
>> [JDK-8353217](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/130b0cdaa6604da47a893e5425547acf3d5253f4),
>> which incorrectly disabled SVE vector math symbols. As a result, some
>> vector math test cases su
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:02:41 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
> This patch fixes a typo introduced in
> [JDK-8353217](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/130b0cdaa6604da47a893e5425547acf3d5253f4),
> which incorrectly disabled SVE vector math symbols. As a result, some vector
> math test c
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:41:28 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Thanks for your approval @theRealAph @shipilev !
>
> @fg1417 -- want to pull it to `jdk25u`? I think it is not a showstopper for
> JDK 25 GA, so we can get it into `25.0.1`.
@shipilev thanks for your reminder! I'll backport it to` jdk
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:36:16 GMT, Fei Gao wrote:
>> @fg1417 -- want to pull it to `jdk25u`? I think it is not a showstopper for
>> JDK 25 GA, so we can get it into `25.0.1`.
>
> @shipilev thanks for your reminder! I'll backport it to` jdk25u` soon.
> Hello @fg1417, we
21 matches
Mail list logo
