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:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:32:31 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     <mingo@...e.hu>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: use 32-bit XOR to zero registers

>>> On 25.06.18 at 18:33, <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 03:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Some Intel CPUs don't recognize 64-bit XORs as zeroing idioms - use
>> 32-bit ones instead.
> 
> Hmph.  Is that considered a bug (errata)?

No.

> URL/references?

Intel's Optimization Reference Manual says so (in rev 040 this is in section
16.2.2.5 "Zeroing Idioms" as a subsection of the Goldmont/Silvermont
descriptions).

> Are these changes really only zeroing the lower 32 bits of the register?
> and that's all that the code cares about?

No - like all operations targeting a 32-bit register, the result is zero
extended to the entire 64-bit destination register.

Jan


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ