Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 May 2021 09:48:19 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] x86/syscall: sign-extend system calls on entry to
 int
Message-ID: <YKDOQxRS+kX1WhQq@gmail.com>
References: <20210515011015.2707542-1-hpa@zytor.com>
 <20210515011015.2707542-2-hpa@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210515011015.2707542-2-hpa@zytor.com>
Precedence: bulk


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> This is an ABI change, but is in fact a revert to the original x86-64
> ABI. The original assembly entry code would zero-extend the system
> call number; this patch uses sign extend to be explicit that this is
> treated as a signed number (although in practice it makes no
> difference, of course) and to avoid people getting the idea of
> "optimizing" it, as has happened on at least two(!) separate
> occasions.

The original x86-64 ABI as documented by AMD, as we (probably) never had 
this in Linux, right?

Sounds sensible to do this, assuming nothing relies on the weirdness.

Thanks,

	Ingo