Re: Antw: Re: rdrand generated with march=winchip-c6 in systemd-241

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 13.05.19 um 09:10 schrieb Ulrich Windl:
>>>> tedheadster <tedheadster@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 11.05.2019 um 19:19 in Nachricht
> <CAP8WD_Y69T_2gk4+gUan4vKozAYtv_djF7cJ=UuiO8j54D6APw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:30 PM Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Can you capture register contents at the point of the crash?
>>>
>>> Does this reproduce in a chroot?  Maybe you can trace the whole thing
>>> with a debugger.  Does the crash reproduce if you single-step through
>>> the whole function?
>>
>> Florian,
>>   I figured out the problem, I just haven't written code to fix it.
>> The documentation I can find is silent about what is returned in %ecx
>> and %ebx when calling cpuid function 0x00000001 on IDT Winchip-C6 and
>> Winchip2.
>>
>> I think %ecx  should properly contain 0x00000000, but it instead puts
>> the 'auls' characters from cpuid function 0x00000000 (vendor string
>> 'CentaurHauls') in %ecx:
>>
>> %ebx = 0x746e6543 = "Cent"
>> %edx = 0x48727561 = "aurH"
>> %ecx = 0x736c7561 = "auls"
>>
>> This sets bit 30 (0x736c7561) 'on', the 'supports rdrand' bit.
>>
>> So we have to code around the vendor and chip model in this case.
>> Jeffrey Walton gave some coding examples I might consider
>> (https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/blob/master/cpu.cpp#L380).
> 
> 
> I didn't see the start of this thread, but is it another attempt to re-implement /proc/cpuinfo's flags?

can you please stop all that trolling?
cpuid has *nothing* to do with /proc/cpuinfo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID
The CPUID instruction (identified by a CPUID opcode) is a processor
supplementary instruction

_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel