[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzck8nuV06AZhhFXgUQEsujZCtufw0jY4iswJUggh6ruA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:08:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: entry_32.S: change ESPFIX test to not touch PT_OLDSS(%esp)
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> New:
> 1e6: 0f ba 64 24 38 11 btl $0x11,0x38(%esp)
btl? Really?
Why isn't that just
testb $2,0x3a(%esp)
which is both smaller and quite a bit faster on older machines.
Sure, the btl is easier to explain in the source code, but instead of this:
> + btl $X86_EFLAGS_VM_BIT,PT_EFLAGS(%esp)
you'd have to add a comment, like
testb $2, PT_EFLAGS+2(%esp) # X86_EFLAGS_VM_BIT
or something.
Or just at least *partially* do what we used to do, and make it all be
movb PT_EFLAGS+2(%esp),%al
andb $2,%al
orb PT_CS(%esp),%al
testb $3,%al
je restore_nocheck
testb $SEGMENT_TI_MASK,PT_OLDSS(%esp)
jne ldt_ss
which still avoids looking at SS unless needed, and is smaller and
faster than the btl, afaik.
Linus
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists