linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YZe/k+uxjdT6+OV5@osiris>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:15:31 +0100
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Mete Durlu <meted@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/test_unwind: use raw opcode instead of invalid
 instruction

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:12:03PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 19.11.21 um 12:09 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:57:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > > > -                       "       mvcl    %%r1,%%r1\n"
> > > > > > > +                       "       .insn e,0x0e11\n"       /* mvcl %%r1,%%r1" */
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I disagree with this. As you said above rr would be the correct
> > > > format for this instruction. If we go for the e format then we should
> > > > also use an instruction with e format.
> > > > Which in this case would simply be an illegal opcode, which would be
> > > > sufficient for what this code is good for: ".insn e,0x0000".
> > > 
> > > Why not simply use .short then?
> > 
> > .short bypasses all sanity checks while .insn does not, so I think
> > that should be preferred. But I don't care too much.
> 
> Heiko,
> I am fine with ".insn e,0x0000" and the a changed comment that
> changes "specification exception" to "operation exception".  Do you
> want Ilie to resend or simply fixup?

I'll simply change it. Let's don't spend more time on this.