From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4914 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2013 15:45:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4905 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2013 15:45:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oa0-f42.google.com Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com (HELO mail-oa0-f42.google.com) (209.85.219.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:45:17 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id g12so453400oah.29 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:45:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.225.162 with SMTP id rl2mr401394obc.72.1381333515786; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.110.15 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:45:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5255221C02000078000F9DD2@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <5254349502000078000F9A3D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <525435BC02000078000F9A51@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <52543EE302000078000F9AF4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5255221C02000078000F9DD2@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/MPX: fix address size handling From: "H.J. Lu" To: Jan Beulich Cc: kirill.yukhin@intel.com, Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:32, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 08.10.13 at 17:15, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> While address overrides are ignored in 64-bit mode (and hence shouldn't >>>>> result in an error), trying to use 16-bit addressing is documented to >>>>> result in #UD, and hence the assembler should reject the attempt. >>>>> >>>>> gas/ >>>>> 2013-10-08 Jan Beulich >>>>> >>>>> * tc-i386.c (md_assemble): Alter address size checking for MPX >>>>> instructions. >>>>> >>>>> --- 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386.c >>>>> +++ 2013-10-07/gas/config/tc-i386.c >>>>> @@ -3549,10 +3549,15 @@ md_assemble (char *line) >>>>> if (i.bnd_prefix && !i.tm.opcode_modifier.bndprefixok) >>>>> as_bad (_("expecting valid branch instruction after `bnd'")); >>>>> >>>>> - if (i.tm.cpu_flags.bitfield.cpumpx >>>>> - && flag_code == CODE_64BIT >>>>> - && i.prefix[ADDR_PREFIX]) >>>>> - as_bad (_("32-bit address isn't allowed in 64-bit MPX instructions.")); >>>> >>>> It is done on purpose. When 32-bit address prefix in 64-bit is ignored, >>>> MPX doesn't work correctly for x32. >>> >>> I don't understand: It _is_ being ignored by the hardware as per >>> the documentation. So x32 need to get along with that. Maybe >>> an example would help, so I could understand why you think >>> this _needs_ to be an error... >>> >> >> X32 won't work with MPX since hardware assumes pointer >> size is always 64 bit in 64-bit mode with or without address >> size prefix. MPX depends on correct pointer size to work. >> I don't want people to use MPX in x32 by accident. > > This seems even more odd - why would x32 be excluded from > using MPX? Again - an example might help, as my understanding > so far was that the implicit zero extension of results of 32-bit > operations should guarantee the half width pointers to be quite > fine to use as full width values (i.e. in other memory operands > I don't see why you would want to use 32-bit addressing either, > except when the wraparound case matters, as might e.g. be > the case with EIP-relative addressing). In 64-bit mode, bndldx and bndstx ignore the lower 3 bits of the address of a pointer, which is OK when pointers are 64-bit aligned. X32 runs in 64-bit mode. But pointers are 32-bit aligned. That means 2 pointers may point to the same bound table entry. That is why MPX won't work for x32 and assembler shouldn't allow it. -- H.J.