linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: use explicit register name for get/put

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]

Message-ID: <4B20029F.90405@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:03:43 +0100
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: use explicit register name for get/put_user

On 12/07/2009 07:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/07/2009 04:37 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> In the document they write only about the "same location" occupied by in
>> and out, nothing is said about size (and hence I think we cannot
>> mismatch size of operands). And I couldn't find any other
>> restrictions/documentation about inline assembly, hence the patch,
>> because nothing assured me this cannot change in the future.
> 
> There is almost no documentation at all; some of the little
> documentation there is is in comments in the source code.  To a first
> order of approximation, asm() is defined by behavior, not by a written
> spec.  Trying to play language lawyer with the little bit that is
> written down is pointless -- the gcc people have been more than happy to
> break asm() between releases regardless of what is and is not written down.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

-- 
js
--
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/