linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/4] x86/acrn: Add hypercall for ACRN guest

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: <e04c43cf-029b-d459-e9d9-1a1f5c403dab@intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 09:56:35 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Chen, Jason CJ" <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/4] x86/acrn: Add hypercall for ACRN guest



On 2019年04月27日 16:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:18:48AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
>> It seems that it is seldom used in kernel although the explicit register
>> variable is supported by GCC and makes the code look simpler. And it seems
>> that the explicit register variable is not suppoorted by CLAG.
> 
> The more reason not to do it this way. Also, the "register" variable
> specification is not very widespread in x86 when you look at
> 
> $ git grep -E "register\s.*asm" arch/x86/
> 
> output.

Yes.  The explicit register variable is not very videspread for arch/x86.
So the register variable will be removed for ACRN hypercall.

> 
>> So the explicit register variable will be removed. I will follow the asm
>> code from Borislav. Of course one minor change is that the "movq" is used
>> instead of "mov".
> 
> Does that matter if your destination register is 64-bit?

Thanks for the reminder about the access width.
It is 64-bit register. What I said is the "movq", not "movl".
(I understand that movl is incorrect for 64-bit register).


Thanks
     Yakui