3 ms·
It's the price you pay for never-break-userspace. OpenBSD is fine with the very small probability that an executable which doesn't do branch tracking will fail
by whoopdedo 3y ago
It's the price you pay for never-break-userspace. OpenBSD is fine with the very small probability that an executable which doesn't do branch tracking will fail to run under the enforced rules. The answer to that is to recompile because you've still got the source, and if not, well, tough cookies.
- loeg 3y ago> OpenBSD is fine with the very small probability that an executable which doesn't do branch tracking will fail to run under the enforced rules. To clarify slightly, OpenBSD is fine with the very high probability that an executable will fail under new rules. Otherwise, yes.
- ndesaulniers 3y ago> the very small probability that an executable which doesn't do branch tracking will fail to run under the enforced rules Isn't it any indirect branch in any program that will trip BTI/IBT? So most programs? I guess I disagree with the `small probability ` part.
- jacquesm 3y agoTough cookies translates for many people into: OpenBSD is not for me. The 'very small probability' likely approaches '1' for sufficiently old enough stuff. And even if you do have the source, does it still build without substantial work? Backwards compatibility is not something to toss out the window without thinking through the consequences.