Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686
Okay, so because the VIA C3 Nehemaiah chip doesn't properly implement ENDBR32, it falls outside of the supported hardware, despite being otherwise an "i686 class chip," correct?
Or put another way, in classic Cyrix style, it's "almost a 686."
As for what I was looking for, well, two things:
1. Clarification on the "big picture" situation in the most precise terms. Assuming the answer to my question above is "yes," then this part is covered.
2. If this was a bug, I was going to ask if there was anything else I could do to help fix it. Since it looks like it's not a bug - not in the SOFTWARE, anyway... - is the best suggestion for hardware like this to use Debian LTS (and bullseye) for the foreseeable future?
--J
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 1:03 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 10:57 -0500, Justin wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have recently encountered a case where a VIA C3 Nehemaiah CPU returns "Illegal
>> Instruction" when trying to run 'sudo' or 'visudo'.
>>
>> After some poking around, I discovered that the FreeBSD folks have encountered this
>> as well, and that it appears to be an issue with GCC where the --fcf-protection
>> option results in the use of the ENDBR32 instruction, which is not supported on the
>> VIA C3 Nehemaiah processor (despite being otherwise i686-compatible).
> [...]
>
> ENDBR32 uses one of the previously reserved hint encodings that i686
> processors are supposed to ignore if they don't specifically support
> them. The release notes for Debian 12 "bookworm" state that the i386
> architecture now requires that:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/testing/release-notes/issues.en.html#i386-is-i686
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, on joining IRC
>
Reply to: