On February 28, 2023 3:42:55 PM PST, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On 28 February 2023 22:48:42 GMT, Brian Gerst <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 5:41 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 21:57 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> > >>> > ---------------- >>> > IN: >>> > 0xffffffffa20000b2: 48 31 d2 xorq %rdx, %rdx >>> > 0xffffffffa20000b5: 48 8b 82 c0 74 d5 a3 movq -0x5c2a8b40(%rdx), %rax >>> > 0xffffffffa20000bc: 48 8b a0 58 14 00 00 movq 0x1458(%rax), %rsp >>> > 0xffffffffa20000c3: 48 83 ec 10 subq $0x10, %rsp >>> > 0xffffffffa20000c7: 66 c7 04 24 7f 00 movw $0x7f, (%rsp) >>> > 0xffffffffa20000cd: 48 8d 82 00 10 81 a3 leaq -0x5c7ef000(%rdx), %rax >>> > 0xffffffffa20000d4: 48 89 44 24 02 movq %rax, 2(%rsp) >>> > 0xffffffffa20000d9: 0f 01 14 24 lgdtq (%rsp) >>> > 0xffffffffa20000dd: 48 83 c4 10 addq $0x10, %rsp >>> > 0xffffffffa20000e1: 31 c0 xorl %eax, %eax >>> > 0xffffffffa20000e3: 8e d8 movl %eax, %ds >>> > >>> > I cannot work out where the value -0x5c7ef000 comes from, but it >>> > doesn't seem to be the 0xb000 you claimed, and my brain is hurting >>> > again... >>> >>> Turning off CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE (or just looking at the vmlinux >>> disassembly instead as Brian did) helps to resolve that FWIW. >>> >>> I've changed it to zero all of %rdx and pushed it back to the v12bis >>> branch. >> >>xorl %edx, %edx is preferred, as a 32-bit operation zero-extends to >>the full 64-bit register. Using xorq to clear any of the lower 8 >>registers adds an unnecessary REX prefix. Just one of many quirks of >>the x86 instruction set... > >Ewww. Couldn't the assembler choose to omit the REX prefix then? It does more tricksy things than that already. > >I almost prefer having the prefix but (in the morning) if you prefer I can put it back as it was with a comment about the zero-extension. > Like it or not, that's how the assembler currently works.
