,Andrew Morton ,"Paul E .
McKenney" ,Nicolas Pitre
,Christopher Li ,"Rafael J .
Wysocki" ,Lukas Wunner ,Mika
Westerberg ,Dou Liyang
,Daniel Borkmann ,Alexei
Starovoitov ,Masahiro Yamada
,Markus Trippelsdorf
,Steven Rostedt ,Rik van Riel
,David Howells ,Waiman Long
,Kyle Huey ,Peter Foley
,Tim Chen ,Catalin Marinas
,Ard Biesheuvel ,Michal
Hocko ,Matthew Wilcox ,Paul Bolle
,Rob Landley ,Baoquan He
,Daniel Micay ,the arch/x86 maintainers
,Linux Crypto Mailing List ,LKML
,xen-devel ,kvm
list ,Linux PM list ,linux-arch
,Sparse Mailing-list
,Kernel Hardening
,Linus Torvalds
,Peter Zijlstra
,Borislav Petkov
From: "H.J. Lu"
Message-ID:
On September 23, 2017 3:06:16 AM GMT+08:00, "H. Peter Anvin"
wrote:
>On 09/22/17 11:57, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, H. Peter Anvin
>wrote:
>>> We lose EBX on 32 bits, but we don't lose RBX on 64 bits - since
>x86-64
>>> has RIP-relative addressing there is no need for a dedicated PIC
>register.
>>
>> FWIW, since gcc 5, the PIC register isn't totally lost. It is now
>> reusable, and that seems to have improved performance:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
>
>It still talks about a PIC register on x86-64, which confuses me.
>Perhaps older gcc's would allocate a PIC register under certain
>circumstances, and then lose it for the entire function?
>
>For i386, the PIC register is required by the ABI to be %ebx at the
>point any PLT entry is called. Not an issue with -mno-plt which goes
>straight to the GOT, although in most cases there needs to be a PIC
>register to find the GOT unless load-time relocation is permitted.
>
> -hpa
We need a static PIE option so that compiler can optimize it
without using hidden visibility.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
