On Thursday, March 07, 2024 10:28 CET, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > From: "Sebastian Reitenbach" <sebastia@l00-bugdead-prods.de>
> > Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 09:01:13 +0100
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wednesday, March 06, 2024 23:42 CET, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 23:32:51 +0100
> > > > From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> > > > 
> > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 19:02:35 +0100
> > > > > From: Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <jca@wxcvbn.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Le Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:17:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler a écrit :
> > > > > > Could you please resend the endbr64 patches with Cc kettenis? They
> > > > > > should make release.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since I now have a laptop with BTI I figured I was going to give this
> > > > > a try.  -current x11/gnustep/zipper was crashing with SIGILL on amd64.
> > > > > For the amd64 diff I'm deliberately not caring about the assembly for
> > > > > Windows.  I can't test the arm64 part but it looks simple.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ok?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sebastian, feel free to commit this if it matches your previous diff.
> > > > 
> > > > Looks right to me.
> > > 
> > > Actually, the arm64 bit is probably incomplete.  And tb@ has a point
> > > that endbr64 should be after the .cfi_startproc.
> > > 
> > 
> > I already created a lot of mess rushing getting the update in, I'm 
> > a bit confused with this back and fourth. Before messing up even more, 
> > which of these should be the correct version, the one from tb@ or jca@ ?
> > And that one would also be complete in aarch64?
> > If I got all those threats right, the tb@ version would be the correct one?
> > Both attached below.
> > 
> > 
> > How do I get a BTI enabled machine?
> > 
> > Sebastian
> > 
> > tb@ version:
> 
> This version looks best to me.  But I suspect arm64 needs more work in
> this version too.
> 
> ok kettenis@
> 
Thank you all, this version is now in, I'll see to upstream it.

Sebastian