linux-kernel - Re: X32 psABI status

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:39:26 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, x32-abi@...glegroups.com,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, GCC Development <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status

> a. the int $0x80 instruction is much slower than syscall.  An actual
>    i386 process can use the syscall instruction which is disambiguated
>    by the CPU based on mode, but an x32 process is in the same CPU mode
>    as a normal 64-bit process.

So set a flag, whoopee

> b. 64-bit arguments have to be split between two registers for the
>    i386 entry points, requiring user-space stubs.

Diddums. Given you've yet to explain why everyone desperately needs this
extra interface why do we care ?

> All in all, the cost of an extra system call table is quite modest.

And the cost of not doing it is a gloriously wonderful zero. Yo've still
not explained the justification or what large number of apps are going to
use it.

It's a simple question - why do we care, why do we want the overhead and
the hassle, what do users get in return ?

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/