rebase

This change is not valid, it removes the templates but leaves the Makefile rules in place to install them.

LGTM other than the minor comments inline

rS340289 / D17923

rS306708

rebase, add inline as suggested by @delphij

This is just another "upstream only considered Linux, we need to be included in the same way as Linux" case.

Can you show a diff of the NetBSD version to this? i.e. what you had to change in the port?
(I assume that we don't want to treat this as contrib code and will just adopt it.)

Wrap in .if !defined(_SKIP_BUILD)

(I've looked over the change other than the just update dictionary section so far)

No objection from me

As it turns out gptzfsboot is identical, whether GAS or IAS is used to assemble gptldr.S:

all other boot components have been addressed; only gptzfsboot needs to be investigated now

rebase after committing boot2 and cdboot changes

cdboot in rS351092

cdboot differences are a large number of addr32 prefixes and using nop nop for alignment rather than xchg %eax,%eax, so it is ok too

Do we know if the differences are similar there as well?

rS351073 for boot2

side by side comparison with the .o generated

In D21110#461916, @asomers wrote:

Submitted as r350665. I don't know why Phabricator didn't close the revision automatically.

In D21232#461469, @imp wrote:

These are fine but (a) you need to have mount privs to execute this ioctl; (b) nandfs is a panic trap due to bad locking and the system can't stay up once there's any vnode pressure at all; and (c) the set of nandfs users is the empty set due to (b). This is not exploitable in any meaningful way.

Seems reasonable to me. I might expand the comment slightly to "prevents a MITM attack on the dependency."

@ngie will you commit this?

Looks like this was broken in rS336439

We're no longer using monthly.cgi

No objection. Please make sure that the releng documentation gets updated to make sure it gets turned back on again (either when making the stable branch or the release branch)

They are indeed not broken which is why I originally abandoned the review, but reopened it based on cem's feedback - as written there's some opportunity for confusion.