linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] x86/asm/entry/32: tidy up some instructions

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

Date:	Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:57:09 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	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 7/9] x86/asm/entry/32: tidy up some instructions

On 04/01/2015 01:52 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 05:50 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not know that. I was sure they are always zero extended.
>>
>> On all half-way modern cpu's they are. But on some older cpu's
>> (possibly just the original 386) the segment move instructions
>> basically are always 16-bit, and the operand size is ignored (so the
>> 32-bit version is just smaller and faster to decode, because it
>> doesn't have a 16-bit operand size prefix)
>>
>> Iirc, the same is true for the values pushed to memory on exceptions,
>> so the 'cs/ss' values on the exception stack may not be reliable in
>> the upper 16 bits.
>>
>> I don't remember if the same might be true of "pushl %Sseg". The intel
>> architecture manual says segment registers are zero-extended on push.
> 
> BTW, AMD64 docs do explicitly say that MOVs from segment registers
> to gpregs are zero-extending.
> 

For Intel processors it is true for Pentium Pro and later processors, as
far as I know.

	-hpa

--
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/