[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: i386/x86_64 segment register issuses (Re: PATCH: Fix x86 segment register access)
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:57:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ binutils and libc back in the discussion - I don't know why they got
> dropped ]

Removing glibc since it accesses segment register with proper

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > There is no such an instruction of "movl %ds,(%eax)". The old assembler
> > accepts it and turns it into "movw %ds,(%eax)".
> I disagree. Violently. As does the old assembler, which does not turn
> "mov" into "movw" as you say. AT ALL.

I should have made myself clear. By "movw %ds,(%eax)", I meant:

8c 18 movw %ds,(%eax)

That is what the assembler generates, and should have generated, for
"movw %ds,(%eax)" since Nov. 4, 2004.

> A "movw" has a 0x66 prefix. The assembler agree with me. Plain logic
> agrees with me. Being consistent _also_ agrees with me (it's the same damn
> instruction to move to a register, for chrissake!)

This is a bug in asssembler and has been fixed on Nov. 4, 2004. If
you want the 0x66 prefix for "movw %ds,(%eax)", you need to use
"word movw %ds,(%eax)" with the new assembler.

> The fact is, every single "mov" instruction takes the size hint, and it
> HAS MEANING, even if the meaning is only about performance, not about
> semantics. In other words, yes, in the specific case of "mov segment to
> memory", it ends up being only a performance hit, but as such IT DOES HAVE
> MEANING. And in fact, even if it didn't end up having any meaning at all,
> it's still a good idea as just a consistency issue.

Accessing segment register is a very special case. It has been treated
differently by gas. Try "movw (%eax),%ds" with your gas. Gas doesn't
generate 0x66. The "movw %ds,(%eax)" bug was fixed last year.

> If you think people should use just "mov", then fine, let people use

I only suggested "mov" for old assemblers.

> "mov". That's their choice - the same way you can write just "or $5,%eax"
> and gas will pick the 32-bit version based on the register name, yes, you
> should be able to write just "mov %fs,mem", and gas will pick whatever
> version using its heuristics for the size (in this case the 32-bit, since
> it does the same thing and is smaller and faster).
> And "mov" has always worked. The kernel just doesn't use it much, because
> the kernel - for good historical reasons - doesn't trust gas to pick sizes
> of instructions automagically.
> And the fact that it is obvious that gas _should_ pick the 32-bit format
> of the instruction when you do not specify a size does NOT MEAN that it's
> wrong to specify the size explicitly.
> And your arguments that there is no semantic difference between the 16-bit
> and the 32-bit version IS MEANINGLESS. An assembler shouldn't care. This

For segment register access, there is no 16-bit nor 32-bit version.
There is only one version.

> is not an argument about semantic difference. This is an argument over a
> user wanting to make the size explicit, to DOCUMENT it.

Are you suggesting that gas should put back 0x66 for both
"movw %ds,(%eax)" and "movw (%eax),%ds"?

> The fact is, if users use "movl" and "movw" explicitly (and the kernel has
> traditionally been _very_ careful to use all instruction sizes explicitly,
> partly exactly because gas itself has been very happy-go-lucky about
> them), then that is a GOOD THING. It means that the instruction is
> well-defined to somebody who knows the x86 instruction set, and he never
> needs to worry or use "objdump" to see if gas was being stupid and
> generated the 16-bit version.

Allowing "movl %ds,(%eax)" has a possibilty that people assume it will
update 32bit memory location. That is how this issue was uncovered.
If you really don't like "mov %ds,(%eax)" and want to support the
old assembler, I can write a kernel patch to check asssembler to
use "movl" for the old asssembler and "movw" for the new assembler.

BTW, to report problems with assembler, there is

Or I can be reached at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.058 / U:22.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site