linux-kernel - Re: x86-64: memset()/memcpy() not fully standards compliant

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:	Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:47:48 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86-64: memset()/memcpy() not fully standards compliant

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:22:52PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/05/2012 10:28 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> Otherwise, is there any rationale for this sort of lurking bug?
> > 
> > Most (all?) of the CPUs I cared about when writing that code had 
> > bugs with string instructions and >4GB.
> > 
> 
> Is that still true, and do we even use string instructions still on
> those old CPUs?  Jan's fixes don't introduce any additional delays in
> the non-string-instruction paths.

Yes various of the CPUs with bugs used string instructions.

Don't know the state on current CPUs.

Both string and non string instructions are used on modern CPUs,
so making any of that slower is not a good idea.

-Andi
--
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/