lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 04/11] x86/entry/64: Adapt assembly for PIE support
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:01:50AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:04 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 04:09:41PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1625,7 +1627,11 @@ first_nmi:
> > > > addq $8, (%rsp) /* Fix up RSP */
> > > > pushfq /* RFLAGS */
> > > > pushq $__KERNEL_CS /* CS */
> > > > - pushq $1f /* RIP */
> > > > + pushq $0 /* Future return address */
> > >
> > > We're building an IRET frame, the IRET frame does not have a 'future
> > > return address' field.
> >
> > I assumed that's the target RIP after iretq.
>
> It is. But it's still the (R)IP field of the IRET frame. Calling it
> anything else is just confusing. The frame is 5 words: SS, (R)SP, (R)FLAGS,
> CS, (R)IP.
>
> > > > + pushq %rdx /* Save RAX */
> > > > + leaq 1f(%rip), %rdx /* RIP */
> > >
> > > nonsensical comment
> >
> > That was the same comment from the push $1f that I changed.
>
> Yes, but there it made sense since the PUSH actually created that field
> of the frame, here it is nonsensical. What this instruction does is put
> the address of the '1f' label into RDX, which is then stuck into the
> (R)IP field on the next instruction.

Got it, make sense. Thanks.

>
> > > > + movq %rdx, 8(%rsp) /* Put 1f on return address */
> > > > + popq %rdx /* Restore RAX */

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-06 17:36    [W:0.045 / U:1.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site