Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:05:37 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/11] x86/entry/64: Adapt assembly for PIE support On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 08:35:09AM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > > Yes, but there it made sense since the PUSH actually created that field > > of the frame, here it is nonsensical. What this instruction does is put > > the address of the '1f' label into RDX, which is then stuck into the > > (R)IP field on the next instruction. > > Got it, make sense. Thanks. > > > > > > > > + movq %rdx, 8(%rsp) /* Put 1f on return address */ And pls write it out as "put the address of the '1f' label into RDX" instead of "Put 1f on return address" which could be misunderstood. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.