[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg9L3EZk=cBjt5R3LkE8Y6swwOZ8sxhpQYcJO3Fj1wLbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:11:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: fix code generation in put_user()
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> There is no same reason to mess around with hacks when we are talking about dx:ax, though.
Sure there is.
"A" doesn't actually mean %edx:%eax like you seem to think.
It actually means %eax OR %edx, and then if given a 64-bit value, it
will use the combination (with %edx being the high bits).
So using "A" unconditionally doesn't work - it gives random behavior
for 32-bit (or smaller) types.
Or you'd have to cast the value to always be 64-bit, and have the
extra code generation.
IOW, an unconditional "A" is wrong.
And the alternative is to just duplicate things, and go back to the
explicit size testing, but honestly, I really think that's much worse
than relying on a documented feature of "register asm()" that gcc
_documents_ is for this kind of inline asm use.
So the "don't do pointless conditional duplication" is certainly a
very sane reason for the code.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists