linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86/asm: Add support for MOVDIR64B instruction

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7EA0719C@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 22:06:27 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
CC:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/asm: Add support for MOVDIR64B instruction

> I think Tony's in the right direction. We already do dst "sizing" like
> that for the compiler in clwb().

The clwb case does look like what we want for movdir64b().

But is it right for clwb() ... that doesn't modify anything, just pushes
things from cache to memory. So why is it using "+m"?

-Tony