search for: io_apic_b

Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "io_apic_b".

2018 Feb 09
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...fe88 [    0.000000] At line 412, gsi_base is 0 [    0.000000] At line 425, gsi_base is -1043715332 [    0.000000] At line 427, gsi_base is -1043715332 http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux-retpoline.git/shortlog/refs/heads/clang http://david.woodhou.se/clang32.config http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.i http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.noretpoline.s http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.retpoline.s I don't *think* I screwed up copying and pasting the retpoline thunk. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signatur...
2018 Feb 09
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...> [    0.000000] At line 425, gsi_base is -1043715332 > [    0.000000] At line 427, gsi_base is -1043715332 > > http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux-retpoline.git/shortlog/ref > s/heads/clang > http://david.woodhou.se/clang32.config > > > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.i > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.noretpoline.s > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.retpoline.s > > I don't *think* I screwed up copying and pasting the retpoline thunk. So, looking at the retpoline version... gsi_base is in %edi, and gets spilled to the stack at about .Ltmp2...
2018 Feb 09
3
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...n't account for the SP adjustment in the push. It's weird, because it's basically the opposite of the problem you're having, which looks like LLVM *is* accounting for the push and is trying to adjust its offsets accordingly. Can you send along the full command line used to compile io_apic_b.i? On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:38 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 11:24 -0800, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > I haven't read the all the emails in full detail, but it seems pretty > > clear that __x86_indirect_thunk and __llvm_retpolin...
2018 Feb 09
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 08:45 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > > You're pushing the target (-0x20(%ebp)) onto the stack and then > > *calling* __x86_indirect_thunk. So it looks like you're expecting > > __x86_indirect_thunk to do something like > > > >   call *4(%esp) > >   ret > > > > ... except that final 'ret' still
2018 Feb 09
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:26 AM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 02:21 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 01:18 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > > > > For now I'm just going to attempt to work around it like this in the > > > kernel, so I can concentrate on the
2018 Feb 09
3
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
..._base is -1043715332 > > [ 0.000000] At line 427, gsi_base is -1043715332 > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux-retpoline.git/shortlog/ref > > s/heads/clang > > http://david.woodhou.se/clang32.config > > > > > > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.i > > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.noretpoline.s > > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.retpoline.s > > > > I don't *think* I screwed up copying and pasting the retpoline thunk. > > So, looking at the retpoline version... > > gsi_base is in %edi, and gets...
2018 Feb 19
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...ment in the > push. > > It's weird, because it's basically the opposite of the problem you're > having, which looks like LLVM *is* accounting for the push and is trying to > adjust its offsets accordingly. > > Can you send along the full command line used to compile io_apic_b.i? > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:38 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 11:24 -0800, Reid Kleckner wrote: >> > I haven't read the all the emails in full detail, but it seems pretty >> > clear that __x86_...
2018 Feb 09
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 11:24 -0800, Reid Kleckner wrote: > I haven't read the all the emails in full detail, but it seems pretty > clear that  __x86_indirect_thunk and __llvm_retpoline_push do not do > the same things. It sounds like __llvm_retpoline_push is equivalent > to __x86_indirect_thunk except first it swaps the two words on the > top of the stack. > > I arranged