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  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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 05:33:48 -0700
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Brian Gerst <>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,
        stable <>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <>,
        "kernelci . org bot" <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Ilie Halip <>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
        Marco Elver <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Daniel Axtens <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        clang-built-linux <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

On May 10, 2020 4:59:17 AM PDT, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>From: Peter Anvin
>> Sent: 08 May 2020 18:32
>> On 2020-05-08 10:21, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> One last suggestion.  Add the "b" modifier to the mask operand:
>> >> %b1, %0".  That forces the compiler to use the 8-bit register name
>> >> instead of trying to deduce the width from the input.
>> >
>> > Ah right:
>> >
>> > Looks like that works for both compilers.  In that case, we can
>> > drop the `& 0xff`, too.  Let me play with that, then I'll hopefully
>> > send a v3 today.
>> >
>> Good idea. I requested a while ago that they document these
>modifiers; they
>> chose not to document them all which in some ways is good; it shows
>what they
>> are willing to commit to indefinitely.
>I thought the intention here was to explicitly do a byte access.
>If the constant bit number has had a div/mod by 8 done on it then
>the address can be misaligned - so you mustn't do a non-byte sized
>locked access.
>OTOH the original base address must be aligned.
>Looking at some instruction timing, BTS/BTR aren't too bad if the
>bit number is a constant. But are 6 or 7 clocks slower if it is in %cl.
>Given these are locked RMW bus cycles they'll always be slow!
>How about an asm multi-part alternative that uses a byte offset
>and byte constant if the compiler thinks the mask is constant
>or a 4-byte offset and 32bit mask if it doesn't.
>The other alternative is to just use BTS/BTS and (maybe) rely on the
>assembler to add in the word offset to the base address.
>	David
>Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes,
>MK1 1PT, UK
>Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

The intent is to do a byte access. The "multi-part asm" you are talking about is also already there...
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists