linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: x86: Remove `r8`, `r9` and `r10` from the clobber list

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:44:43 +0700
From:   Ammar Faizi <ammar.faizi@...dents.amikom.ac.id>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Ammar Faizi <ammar.faizi@...dents.amikom.ac.id>,
        Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: x86: Remove `r8`, `r9` and `r10` from the clobber list

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:52 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 04:24:28PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
> > (...)
> > > In short:  Ammars initial claim:
> > >
> > > > Linux x86-64 syscall only clobbers rax, rcx and r11 (and "memory").
> > > >
> > > >   - rax for the return value.
> > > >   - rcx to save the return address.
> > > >   - r11 to save the rflags.
> > > >
> > > > Other registers are preserved.
> > >
> > > is accurate and I will clarify the psABI to make that explicit.
> >
> > Many thanks for this very detailed explanation! Ammar, I'll take your
> > patch.

Thanks all.

>
> Great, why are we dealing with some funky document when the law is in
> glibc sources?!
>
> :-)))
>
> Ammar, if you wanna fixup the comment in entry_64.S too - make sure you
> explain that glibc expects argument registers to be restored - I'll take
> that patch too.
>
> :-)

Yay! I will send a patch for it, on this or next week.

>
> Thx, that was fun.
>

-- 
Ammar Faizi