linux-kernel - RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:25:18 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Denys Vlasenko' <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        "jbeulich@...e.com" <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "brgerst@...il.com" <brgerst@...il.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry/64: Add two more instruction suffixes

From: Denys Vlasenko
> Sent: 03 July 2018 12:59
> 
> On 07/03/2018 10:46 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Jan Beulich
> >> Sent: 03 July 2018 09:36
> > ...
> >> As said there, omitting suffixes from instructions in AT&T mode is bad
> >> practice when operand size cannot be determined by the assembler from
> >> register operands, and is likely going to be warned about by upstream
> >> gas in the future (mine does already).
> > ...
> >> -	bt	$9, EFLAGS(%rsp)		/* interrupts off? */
> >> +	btl	$9, EFLAGS(%rsp)		/* interrupts off? */
> >
> > Hmmm....
> > Does the operand size make any difference at all for the bit instructions?
> > I'm pretty sure that the cpus (386 onwards) have always done aligned 32bit
> > transfers (the docs never actually said aligned).
> > I can't remember whether 64bit mode allows immediates above 31.
> 
> Immediates up to 63 are allowed in 64 bit mode (IOW: for REX-prefixed form)
> (run-tested).
> 
> Keep in mind that this instruction is "special" with register bit offset:
> 
> Register/memory form (BT REG,[MEM]) does not limit or mask the value of bit offset
> in REG, the instruction uses bit REG%8 in byte at address [MEM+REG/8].
> 
> This works correctly even for negative values: REG = -1 will access
> the most significant bit in the byte immediately before MEM.
> 
> Thus, for accesses of standard RAM locations (not memory-mapped IO and such),
> the "operand size" concept for this instruction (and BTC, BTR, BTS)
> does not make much sense: it accesses one bit. The width of actual memory
> access is irrelevant.
> 
> I'd say assembler should just use the "natural" width for current mode
> (16 or 32-bit), and warn when code tries to use immediate operand which
> will be truncated and thus needs a wider operand size.
...


Indeed.

Truncating the immediate value really ought to be an error.
In 64bit mode the 64bit form should be used for immediates [32..63).
The 16bit form could safely be selected for immediates [0..15).

Requiring the width suffix is just stupid.

	David