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:	Tue, 04 Nov 2014 12:10:43 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/boot] x86-64: Use RIP-relative addressing for most per-CPU

On 11/04/2014 11:45 AM, tip-bot for Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit-ID:  97b67ae559947f1e208439a1bf6a734da3087006
> Gitweb:
> Author:     Jan Beulich <>
> AuthorDate: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 08:50:48 +0000
> Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <>
> CommitDate: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:43:14 +0100
> x86-64: Use RIP-relative addressing for most per-CPU accesses
> Observing that per-CPU data (in the SMP case) is reachable by
> exploiting 64-bit address wraparound (building on the default kernel
> load address being at 16Mb), the one byte shorter RIP-relative
> addressing form can be used for most per-CPU accesses. The one
> exception are the "stable" reads, where the use of the "P" operand
> modifier prevents the compiler from using RIP-relative addressing, but
> is unavoidable due to the use of the "p" constraint (side note: with
> gcc 4.9.x the intended effect of this isn't being achieved anymore,
> see gcc bug 63637).
> With the dependency on the minimum kernel load address, arbitrarily
> low values for CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START are now no longer possible. A
> link time assertion is being added, directing to the need to increase
> that value when it triggers.

This description makes very little sense.  What matters here is the
virtual address, which is always >= -2 GB.


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