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;
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 13:23:59 -0700
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <YKDOQxRS+kX1WhQq@gmail.com>
References: <20210515011015.2707542-1-hpa@zytor.com> <20210515011015.2707542-2-hpa@zytor.com> <YKDOQxRS+kX1WhQq@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] x86/syscall: sign-extend system calls on entry to int
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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>
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <4127D74A-A110-4EAB-9745-46997B1B031C@zytor.com>
Precedence: bulk

No, this is what the Linux kernel did for a very long time=2E

On May 16, 2021 12:48:19 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel=2Eorg> wrote:
>
>* H=2E Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor=2Ecom> wrote:
>
>> This is an ABI change, but is in fact a revert to the original x86-64
>> ABI=2E 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=2E
>
>The original x86-64 ABI as documented by AMD, as we (probably) never
>had=20
>this in Linux, right?
>
>Sounds sensible to do this, assuming nothing relies on the weirdness=2E
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E