[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXfWWNTNy-hKxT6K+XQqDRdu=45jF+ZcMKvB0ANm4jYGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:14:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/entry/x32: Check top 32 bits of syscall number on the
fast path
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 04/17/16 22:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> I think I prefer the "reject weird input" behavior over the "accept
>> and normalize weird input" if we can get away with it, and I'm fairly
>> confident that we can get away with "reject weird input" given that
>> distro kernels do exactly that already.
>>
>
> It's not "weird", it is the ABI as defined. We have to do this for all
> the system call arguments, too; you just don't notice it because the
> compiler does it for us. Some other architectures, e.g. s390, has the
> opposite convention where the caller is responsible for normalizing the
> result; in that case we have to do it *again* in the kernel, which is
> one of the major reasons for the SYSCALL_*() macros.
What ABI?
Even the man page says:
#define _GNU_SOURCE /* See feature_test_macros(7) */
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/syscall.h> /* For SYS_xxx definitions */
long syscall(long number, ...);
musl's 64-bit syscall wrappers use long I can't confidently decipher
glibc's wrappers, because they're approximately as obfuscated as the
rest of glibc, but the code that I think matters looks like:
# define DO_CALL(syscall_name, args) \
DOARGS_##args \
movl $SYS_ify (syscall_name), %eax; \
syscall;
which doesn't correspond to any particular C type but leaves the high
bits clear.
For all I know, some day we'll want to use the syscall instruction for
something that isn't a normal syscall, and having high bits available
for that could be handy.
Also, the behavior in which fail the syscall if any high bits are set
is faster -- it's one fewer instruction. Admittedly, the CPU can
probably do that instruction for free, but still...
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists