linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Add more x86 mov instruction cases

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]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fUtEvW9h7N=w3vvYBB3vytnTXJsXrHDD6zLA2DzYFOBHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2023 23:23:46 -0700
From:   Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Add more x86 mov instruction cases

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:22 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Instructions with sign- and zero- extention like movsbl and movzwq were
> not handled properly.  As it can check different size suffix (-b, -w, -l
> or -q) we can omit that and add the common parts even though some
> combinations are not possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> index 5f4ac4fc7fcf..5cdf457f5cbe 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> @@ -74,12 +74,15 @@ static struct ins x86__instructions[] = {
>         { .name = "movdqa",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "movdqu",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "movsd",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> -       { .name = "movslq",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "movss",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movsb",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movsw",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movsl",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },

In Intel's manual some of these names are "Move Data From String to
String" operations, movsb and movsw in particular. These instructions
can be used to make simple memcpy loops. Could it be the past omission
was deliberate due to the different way the addressing works in the
instructions?

Thanks,
Ian

>         { .name = "movupd",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "movups",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> -       { .name = "movzbl",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> -       { .name = "movzwl",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movzb",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movzw",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> +       { .name = "movzl",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "mulsd",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "mulss",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
>         { .name = "nop",        .ops = &nop_ops,  },
> --
> 2.42.0.283.g2d96d420d3-goog
>