linux-kernel - Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec

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]

Message-ID: <20181129130718.GA3070@nazgul.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:07:18 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, rguenther@...e.de, matz@...e.de,
        gcc@....gnu.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:46:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> But, I'd like to ask if x86 people want to keep this macros.s approach.
> Revert 77b0bf55bc675 right now
> assuming the compiler will eventually solve the issue?

Yap, considering how elegant the compiler solution is and how much
problems this macros-in-asm thing causes, I think we should patch
out the latter and wait for gcc9. I mean, the savings are not so
mind-blowing to have to deal with the fallout.

But this is just my opinion.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--