linux-kernel - a problem in cpucheck.c on x86

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:51:44 +0800
From:	ttlxzz ccc <boyzccc@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: a problem in cpucheck.c on x86

Hi,all:

In arch/x86/boot/cpucheck.c
static int has_eflag(u32 mask)
{
	u32 f0, f1;

	asm("pushfl ; "
	    "pushfl ; "
	    "popl %0 ; "
	    "movl %0,%1 ; "
	    "xorl %2,%1 ; "
	    "pushl %1 ; "
	    "popfl ; "
	    "pushfl ; "
	    "popl %1 ; "
	    "popfl"
	    : "=&r" (f0), "=&r" (f1)
	    : "ri" (mask));

	return !!((f0^f1) & mask);
}

	    "pushl %1 ; "
	    "popfl ; "
	    "pushfl ; "
	    "popl %1 ; "
I don't know what does above 4 instructions do, and I rewirte it like this:

static int has_eflag(u32 mask)
{
        u32 f0;

        asm("pushfl ; "
            "pushfl ; "
            "popl %0 ; "
            "popfl"
            : "=&r" (f0));

        return ~f0 & mask;

}
It works well, and I just want to know is there some special meanings
of the 4 instructions?
	    "pushl %1 ; "
	    "popfl ; "
	    "pushfl ; "
	    "popl %1 ; "
--
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/