Re: System call number masking

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 10:48 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > I'm updating my x32-as-boot-time-option patch for 4.6, and I noticed a
> > subtle change in system call number masking on x86_64 as a result of
> > moving the slow path into C.
> > 
> > Previously we would mask out the upper 32 bits before doing anything
> > with the system call number, both on the slow and fast paths, if and
> > only if x32 was enabled.
> I always thought that the old behavior was nonsensical.  The behavior
> should be the same regardless of config options.
[...]

Oops, my C is failing me - ints are sign-extended, not zero-extended,
when promoted to unsigned long.  So the slow path actually does test
the upper 32 bits, and the odd one out is the x32 fast path.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Always try to do things in chronological order;
it's less confusing that way.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]