linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/32: Rename labels in INT 0x80 code path

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

Message-ID: <20150608053537.GA18307@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:35:37 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/32: Rename labels in INT 0x80 code path


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 2015 11:42 AM, "Denys Vlasenko" <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rename it to ia32_int80_target.
> 
> Btw, could we arrive to get rid of the idiotic "ia32" naming too? It's wrong, 
> and it harkens back to the days when intel thought itanium makes sense and 
> wanted to talk about "intel architecture".

Absolutely, I've been slowly eliminating uses of it - that naming is very 
annoying.

Another thing I'm doing is to slowly remove references to 'emulation' - we don't 
emulate 32-bit in any way, we implement various 32-bit syscall ABIs (old a new) 
natively.

I'd like to remove CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION from the .config as well - it offers 
nothing real over CONFIG_COMPAT.

> The platform is called x86, not ia32. And in this particular case, u suspect the 
> important part isn't the x86 part, but the "compat" part - we damn well know 
> we're x86, the important part is that this is the 32-bit compat entry point of a 
> 64-bit kernel. No?

Totally. All strings of 'ia32' and 'IA32' will be gone in the long run except from 
Intel specific MSR names or so.

> So "ia32" is just crazy, and the architecture is not in question anyway, why not 
> name these things for the things that really matter?

Yeah. I wanted to rename all the entry points to be logical, and beyond removing 
the nonsensical 'ia32' names I also wanted to make it clear what kind of 
instruction's entry point they are.

For example whoever thought that 'ia32_cstar_target' is a proper name for the 
primary 32-bit syscall entry point needs their head examined.

My (re-)naming plan is:

	ia32_sysenter_target	-> entry_SYSENTER_32
	system_call (32)	-> entry_INT80_32
	system_call (64)	-> entry_SYSCALL_64
	ia32_cstar_target	-> entry_SYSCALL_compat
	ia32_syscall		-> entry_INT80_compat
	ia32_sysenter_target	-> entry_SYSENTER_compat

The ideas behind this naming scheme is to:

  - Make it really obvious, through a capitalized asm mnemonic, which particular 
    x86 CPU instruction a particular entry point corresponds to. People changing 
    that code should be absolutely aware of the various special properties these
    instructions have.

  - Harmonize the naming across the native 32-bit, 64-bit and compat space.

  - Unconfuse the 32-bit and 64-bit logic where the 'system_call' entry point is 
    actually for two (starkly) different instructions.

  - Remove the various ia32 prefixes that are sometimes denoting compat, sometimes
    native 32-bit.

Another possibility would be:

	ia32_sysenter_target	-> entry_32_SYSENTER
	system_call (32)	-> entry_32_INT80
	system_call (64)	-> entry_64_SYSCALL
	ia32_cstar_target	-> entry_64_SYSCALL_compat
	ia32_syscall		-> entry_64_INT80_compat
	ia32_sysenter_target	-> entry_64_SYSENTER_compat

These names are typically only used in two places, so name length is not as 
critical as for other function names.

And naming matters: a good name is both descriptive and short, as we know it from 
the excellent examples of 'Linux' and 'Git'. Oh wait ...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/