> On Sep 15, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The old smap_save() code was:
>>
>> pushf
>> pop %0
>>
>> with %0 defined by an "=rm" constraint. This is fine if the
>> compiler picked the register option, but it was incorrect with an
>> %rsp-relative memory operand.
>
> It is incorrect because ... (I think mentioning the point about the
> red zone would be good, unless there were additional concerns?)
This isn’t a red zone issue — it’s a just-plain-wrong issue. The popf is storing the result in the wrong place in memory — it’s RSP-relative, but RSP is whatever the compiler thinks it should be minus 8, because the compiler doesn’t know that pushfq changed RSP.
>
> This is something we should fix. Bill, James, and I are discussing
> this internally. Thank you for filing a bug; I owe you a beer just
> for that.
I’m looking forward to the day that beers can be exchanged in person again :)
>
>>
>> Fixes: e74deb11931f ("x86/uaccess: Introduce user_access_{save,restore}()")
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Reported-by: Bill Wendling <morbo@xxxxxxxxxx> # I think
>
> LOL, yes, the comment can be dropped...though I guess someone else may
> have reported the problem to Bill?
The “I think” is because I’m not sure whether Bill reported this particular issue. But I’m fine with dropping it.
