[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2jY+m5amE-6JB_eYswG2tx1aT6U3EBdYEtc-KdXSHec0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:41:11 -0500
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Remove x86_32 PIC using ebx workaround
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 5:57 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:45:46PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Current minimum required version of GCC is version 5.1 which allows
> > reuse of PIC hard register on x86/x86-64 targets [1]. Remove
> > obsolete workaround that was needed for earlier GCC versions.
> >
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
>
> Thanks for the doc pointer.
>
> Lemme see if I understand this commit message correctly:
>
> SysV i386 ABI says that %ebx is used as the base reg in PIC. gcc 5 and
> newer can handle all possible cases properly where inline asm could
> clobber the PIC reg. I.e., it is able to deal with the "=b" constraint
> where an insn can overwrite %ebx and it'll push and pop around that
> statement.
>
> So far so good.
>
> Why then does this matter for x86-64 where PIC addressing is done
> rip-relative so %rbx is normal reg there?
x86-64 uses a PIC register for the medium and large PIC code models,
where offsets can be larger than +/- 2GB.
--
Brian Gerst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists