On Friday, November 8, 2019, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> Philip Guenther <guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since we're unlikely to do _more_ with BIOS calls in the boot loader, my > > inclination would be to eliminate the structure value and the code that > > sets it (incorrectly). Opinions? > > I dunno, my crystal ball provides a more cynical outlook. > > How about we just repair by swapping the blocks as you propose, then > noone gets surprised down the road if they try to use the bios-interface > API's full functionality. > > The bootblocks don't shrink, but they don't grow either. > > Is this the right diff? I'm deleting the name which is in the commitlogs > since that isn't our style. ... > --- sys/arch/amd64/stand/libsa/gidt.S 27 Oct 2012 15:43:42 -0000 > 1.11 > +++ sys/arch/amd64/stand/libsa/gidt.S 9 Nov 2019 03:57:11 -0000 > @@ -417,19 +417,18 @@ intno = . - 1 > .byte 0xb8 > 2: .long 0x90909090 > > - /* pass BIOS return values back to caller */ > - movl %eax, 0xb*4(%esp) > - movl %ecx, 0xa*4(%esp) > - movl %edx, 0x9*4(%esp) > - movb %bh , 0xe*4(%esp) > - > /* clear NT flag in eflags */ > - /* Martin Fredriksson <mar...@gbg.netman.se> */ > pushf > pop %eax > and $0xffffbfff, %eax > push %eax > popf No, it should be the other way, moving the “clear NT flag” block down after the “save registers into save area” block Philip
