From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Don't add 0x66 prefix to IRET for .code16gcc
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:13:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqGB8pf3pp3SQibk2bF9K7dgmerDr=dpXrPBR3CVv2HLw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5CC72236020000780022A212@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:11 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 29.04.19 at 18:02, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> On 29.04.19 at 17:09, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:01 AM Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 26.04.19 at 19:22, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > The .code16gcc directive supports 16bit mode with 32-bit address. Since
> >> >> > IRET (opcode 0xcf) in 16bit mode returns from an interrupt in 16bit mode,
> >> >> > we shouldn't add 0x66 prefix for IRET.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > PR gas/24485
> >> >> > * config/tc-i386.c (process_suffix): Don't add DATA_PREFIX_OPCODE
> >> >> > to IRET for .code16gcc.
> >> >>
> >> >> This, at the very least, needs to be accompanied by a warning:
> >> >
> >> > This patch fixes:
> >> >[...]
> >> >> As the bug report validly says, the changed behavior is what is
> >> >> wanted only "almost always". The report even mentions the
> >> >> (supposedly uncommon) case: Code manually building a frame
> >> >> and IRETing to it will now be silently(!) broken.
> >> >
> >> > The .code16gcc directive is to support "gcc -m16". Any other purposes
> >> > are not supported.
> >>
> >> But you realize that people may use inline assembly?
> >
> > Inline assembly with the .code16gcc directive in an interrupt
> > handler? It is a supported usage?
>
> I don't know, but I see no reasons why it would not be. Note
> that I didn't mention "in an interrupt handler" - I can see uses
> for manually created frames to IRET to elsewhere.
>
> >> >> In fact I think the better solution would be to reject ambiguous
> >> >> code by demanding a suffix in all cases in .code16gcc mode.
> >> >
> >> > This may break existing codes.
> >>
> >> Of course, but breaking things at build time (with a proper
> >> diagnostic) that's better than silently breaking things at
> >> runtime. At the very least you can't claim it would break the
> >> supposedly common case, as that was already broken (and
> >> hence your fix). So the difference between suggested
> >> and current behavior is that right now there's silent latent
> >> breakage, whereas otherwise people would be made aware
> >> of there being a problem they need to address by changing
> >> some of their code.
> >
> > Assembler has no way to know if an assembly sequence is
> > correct and it shouldn't issue a warning for "gcc -m16" just
> > because the same instruction may be incorrect.
>
> I disagree: In this case, the assembler simply can't decide
> whether adding an operand size override is correct. Instead
> of silently doing the opposite of what has been done for
> many years, it should point out that it needs programmer
> guidance.
>
So the specific case is
1. Programming in 16-bit mode with GCC using "gcc -m16".
2. Manually create a 32-bit stack frame for a function with 32-bit iret.
3. Implement such a function with .code16gcc and "iret".
4. Jump to such a function.
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-29 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-26 17:22 H.J. Lu
2019-04-29 7:01 ` Jan Beulich
2019-04-29 15:09 ` H.J. Lu
2019-04-29 15:25 ` Jan Beulich
2019-04-29 16:03 ` H.J. Lu
2019-04-29 16:11 ` Jan Beulich
2019-04-29 17:13 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2019-04-30 6:44 ` Jan Beulich
2019-04-30 15:49 ` H.J. Lu
2019-05-02 7:43 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMe9rOqGB8pf3pp3SQibk2bF9K7dgmerDr=dpXrPBR3CVv2HLw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).