On Mon, 9 May 2022, Uros Bizjak wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:44 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Another question:
> >
> > I think that this patch might need to be back ported to Gcc12 and GCC11.
> >
> > What?s your opinion on this?
> 
> It is not a regression, so following general rules, the patch should
> not be backported. OTOH, the patch creates functionally equivalent
> code, better in some security aspects. The functionality is also
> hidden behind some non-default flag, so I think if release managers
> (CC'd) are OK with the backport, I'd give it a technical approval.
> 
> > If so, when can I backport it?
> 
> Let's keep it in the mainline for a week or two, before backporting it
> to non-EoL branches.

OK from my POV after a week or two on trunk.

Richard.

> Uros.
> 
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > Qing
> >
> > > On May 7, 2022, at 4:06 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:42 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On May 6, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:29 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As Kee?s requested in this PR: 
> > >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101891
> > >>>>
> > >>>> =====
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Currently -fzero-call-used-regs will use a pattern of:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> XOR regA,regA
> > >>>> MOV regA,regB
> > >>>> MOV regA,regC
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> RET
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, this introduces both a register ordering dependency (e.g. the 
> > >>>> CPU cannot clear regB without clearing regA first), and while greatly 
> > >>>> reduces available ROP gadgets, it does technically leave a set of 
> > >>>> "MOV" ROP gadgets at the end of functions (e.g. "MOV regA,regC; RET").
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please switch to always using XOR:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> XOR regA,regA
> > >>>> XOR regB,regB
> > >>>> XOR regC,regC
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> RET
> > >>>>
> > >>>> =======
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This patch switch all MOV to XOR on i386.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bootstrapped and regresstion tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Okay for gcc13?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Qing
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ==========================================
> > >>>
> > >>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * config/i386/i386.cc (zero_all_mm_registers): Use SET to zero instead
> > >>>> of MOV for zeroing scratch registers.
> > >>>> (ix86_zero_call_used_regs): Likewise.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-1.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-10.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-13.c: Add -msse.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-14.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-15.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-16.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-17.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-18.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC, adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-19.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-2.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-20.c: Add -msse.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-21.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC, Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-22.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-23.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-26.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-27.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-3.c: Add -fno-stack-protector.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-31.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-4.c: Add -fno-stack-protector
> > >>>> -fno-PIC.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-5.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-6.c: Add -fno-stack-protector.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-7.c: Likewise.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-8.c: Adjust mov to xor.
> > >>>> * gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-9.c: Add -fno-stack-protector.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please use something like the attached (functionally equivalent) patch
> > >>> for the last hunk of your patch.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, I will update the code.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, if possible, please use V2SImode as a generic MMX mode instead
> > >>> of V4HImode.
> > >> What?s the major purpose of this change?
> > >
> > > Although the generated code is the same, V2SI is used as a "generic"
> > > MMX move insn in the same way V2DI is used to describe generic SSE
> > > move instruction.
> > >
> > > Uros.
> >
> 

-- 
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imend

Reply via email to