linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/vmware: Add a header file for hypercall definitions

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: <e7002524-2572-57af-176a-d6b924c98738@shipmail.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:19:40 +0200
From:   Thomas Hellström (VMware) 
        <thomas_os@...pmail.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pv-drivers@...are.com,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Doug Covelli <dcovelli@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/vmware: Add a header file for hypercall
 definitions

On 8/20/19 3:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>
>> On 8/20/19 1:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 04:33:14PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>>>
>>>> +#define VMWARE_HYPERCALL \
>>>> +	ALTERNATIVE_2(".byte 0xed", \
>>>> +		      ".byte 0x0f, 0x01, 0xc1", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMCALL,	\
>>>> +		      ".byte 0x0f, 0x01, 0xd9", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL)
>>> For sanity, could we either add comments, or macros for those
>>> instrucions?
>> Hmm. Here I followed and slightly extended what was done in asm/kvm_para.h.
>>
>> What confuses me a bit is, if it's clarity we're after, why don't people use
>>
>> #define VMWARE_HYPERCALL 					\
>> 	ALTERNATIVE_2("inl (%%dx)", 				\
>> 		      "vmcall", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMCALL,		\	
>> 		      "vmmcall", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL)
>>
>> Seems to build fine here. Is it fear of old assemblers not supporting, for
>> example vmmcall
> The requirement for binutils is version >= 2.21. If 2.21 supports vmcall and
> vmmcall all good.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx

So I tested 2.20.1 and 2.21.1 from ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils, and both 
seem to assemble (as-new) and disassemble (objdump -S) vmcall and 
vmmcall fine so I think we should be OK using the mnemonic format then.

Thanks,

Thomas




<https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/>