linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] BUILD REGRESSION a2e5790d841658485d642196dbb0927303d6c22f

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:49:33 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] BUILD REGRESSION
 a2e5790d841658485d642196dbb0927303d6c22f

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:35:43PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:13:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Adding more people for this funky warning from the kbuild robot.
> > 
> > Something is confused. UD0 is 0f ff, the bytes after that shouldn't
> > matter. But I guess they can be interpreted as modrm bytes, and
> > somebody started doing that.
> > 
> > That said, intel only _documents_ UD2 (0f 0b).
> 
> They documented UD0 and UD1 a year ago or so:
> 
> 0F FF /r UD0¹  r32, r/m32 RM Valid Valid Raise invalid opcode exception
> 0F B9 /r UD1 r32, r/m32 RM Valid Valid Raise invalid opcode exception.
> 
> and the footnote says
> 
> "1. Some older processors decode the UD0 instruction without a ModR/M
> byte. As a result, those processors would deliver an invalid- opcode
> exception instead of a fault on instruction fetch when the instruction
> with a ModR/M byte (and any implied bytes) would cross a page or segment
> boundary."
> 
> So those two take a ModRM byte.

Argh. So the SDM I'm looking at (March 2017) doesn't list UD0 as having
a ModR/M byte, it doesn't have that footnote.

> And we chose UD0 for WARN, see arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h for the
> reasoning.

Right, we picked UD0 because we _thought_ everybody agreed it being 2
bytes, just like UD2. This is now not true anymore?