linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/alternatives] x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers for cpufeature index

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:58:29 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hpa@...ux.intel.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/alternatives] x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers
 for cpufeature index

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 02:20 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers for cpufeature index
>>>
>>> We already have cpufeature indicies above 255, so use a 16-bit number
>>> for the alternatives index.  This consumes a padding field and so
>>> doesn't add any size, but it means that abusing the padding field to
>>> create assembly errors on overflow no longer works.  We can retain the
>>> test simply by redirecting it to the .discard section, however.
>>>
>> My machine hits "invalid opcode" at *prepare_to_copy+0x79,
>> and it can't boot up.
>>
>> (gdb) l *prepare_to_copy+0x79
>> 0xc0101789 is in prepare_to_copy (/home/njubee/work/linux-2.6-tip/arch/x86/include/asm/xsave.h:118).
>> 113
>> 114     static inline void fpu_xsave(struct fpu *fpu)
>> 115     {
>> 116             /* This, however, we can work around by forcing the compiler to select
>> 117                an addressing mode that doesn't require extended registers. */
>> 118             __asm__ __volatile__(".byte " REX_PREFIX "0x0f,0xae,0x27"
>> 119                                  : : "D" (&(fpu->state->xsave)),
>> 120                                      "a" (-1), "d"(-1) : "memory");
>> 121     }
>> 122     #endif
>>
> 
> There are no alternatives in that code, at all... so it makes me really
> wonder what is going on.  One possibility, of course, is that one
> alternative has ended up with the wrong address.  Will look...
> 

There is alternative in use_xsave().
use_xsave() should return false in my system, but it returns true after this patch applied.

>> Does this patch change the return value of "use_xsave()"
--
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/