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:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:24:12 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "Chen, Jason CJ" <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/4] x86/acrn: Add hypercall for ACRN guest

On 2019年04月28日 18:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 09:56:35AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
>> 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).
> I didn't say anything about movl. I think what you're trying to say is
> that because your inputs like hcall_id and param1/2 are unsigned longs,
> you want a 64-bit move.

Yes. "movq" only indicates explicitly that it is 64-bit mov as ACRN 
guest only works under 64-bit mode.
I also check the usage of "mov" and "movq" in this scenario. There is no 
difference except that the movq is an explicit 64-op.
Of course "mov" is also ok to me that if you prefer the "mov".


Powered by blists - more mailing lists