Re: [PATCH 01/12] arm64/bti: Add BTI landing pad to __sdei_asm_handler()
From: sashiko-bot
Date: Sat Aug 15 2026 - 01:02:02 EST
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Missing BTI landing pads (`bti j`) on indirect branch targets in the KPTI trampoline (`__sdei_asm_exit_trampoline` and `tramp_exit`).
- [High] The KPTI entry trampoline mapping at `TRAMP_VALIAS` lacks the BTI Guarded Page (`PTE_GP`) attribute, disabling hardware CFI checks.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 01/12] arm64/bti: Add BTI landing pad to __sdei_asm_handler() ---
commit 59fadd16326c687a5994c4bec81d9484edcc08f9
Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
arm64/bti: Add BTI landing pad to __sdei_asm_handler()
With CONFIG_UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0, __sdei_asm_entry_trampoline() indirect
jumps to __sdei_asm_handler(). Add "bti j" to prevent a Branch Target
exception.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index e0db14e9c843a..16c21fcb41976 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -976,6 +976,7 @@ NOKPROBE(__sdei_asm_exit_trampoline)
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but do we also need bti j landing pads on the
indirect branch targets for the exit paths?
For example, __sdei_asm_exit_trampoline() is called via an indirect branch
(br x5):
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:__sdei_asm_exit_trampoline() {
SYM_CODE_START(__sdei_asm_exit_trampoline)
ldr x4, [x4, #(SDEI_EVENT_INTREGS + S_SDEI_TTBR1)]
...
}
Similarly, tramp_exit() in the same file lacks a landing pad despite being
called via an indirect branch (br x29) on the EL0 exit path:
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:tramp_exit() {
SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL(tramp_exit)
tramp_unmap_kernel x29
...
}
Would it be better to add bti j annotations to these functions as well to
prevent Branch Target exceptions?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the KPTI trampoline mapping
need the BTI Guarded Page (PTE_GP) attribute?
Looking at map_entry_trampoline() in arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c, it uses
kernel_exec_prot() to map the trampoline text:
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:map_entry_trampoline() {
pgprot_t prot = kernel_exec_prot();
...
early_create_pgd_mapping(tramp_pg_dir, pa_start, TRAMP_VALIAS,
entry_tramp_text_size(), prot,
pgd_pgtable_alloc_init_mm, NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS);
}
The prot variable is derived from PAGE_KERNEL_ROX, which does not appear to
contain the PTE_GP bit. Does this inadvertently disable hardware BTI enforcement
for the trampoline pages? If so, could this architectural gap be masking the
missing bti j annotations on the trampoline exit paths mentioned above?
> * want them.
> */
> SYM_CODE_START(__sdei_asm_handler)
> + bti j
> stp x2, x3, [x1, #SDEI_EVENT_INTREGS + S_PC]
> stp x4, x5, [x1, #SDEI_EVENT_INTREGS + 16 * 2]
> stp x6, x7, [x1, #SDEI_EVENT_INTREGS + 16 * 3]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1786768375.git.jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx?part=1