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  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:	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:29:04 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
Cc:	Ramkumar Ramachandra <>,
	LKML <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Eli Friedman <>,
	Jim Grosbach <>,
	Stephen Checkoway <>, LLVMdev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: avoid mnemonics without type suffix

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> wrote:
> It looks like that if the base address isn't aligned then neither is the
> generated access, so you could get a protection fault if it overlaps a
> page boundary, which is a semantic rather than purely operational
> difference.

You could also get AC fault for the btq if the thing is only long-aligned.

But yes, I checked the Intel manuals too, and the access size is
actually not well-specified (even the 16-bit case says "may", I
think), so both the page-fault and the alignment fault are purely
theoretical. And i'm too lazy to bother trying the (easily testable)
alignment fault case in practice, since (a) nobody cares and (b)
nobody cares.

In the (unlikely) situation that somebody actually cares, that
somebody should obviously then have to specify "btl" vs "btq".
Assuming the hardware cares, which is testable but might be
micro-architecture dependent.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists