On Sat, 28 Feb 2026, at 10:38, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 11:40 PM Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>> - asm volatile("movw %%ax, %%ss" : : "a"(ctxt->ss));
>> - asm volatile("movq %0, %%rsp" : : "m"(ctxt->rsp));
>> + asm volatile("movw %0, %%ss" : : "m"(hv_crash_ctxt.ss));
>> + asm volatile("movq %0, %%rsp" : : "m"(hv_crash_ctxt.rsp));
>
> Maybe this part should be written together as:
>
> asm volatile("movw %0, %%ss\n\t"
> "movq %1, %%rsp"
> :: "m"(hv_crash_ctxt.ss), "m"(hv_crash_ctxt,rsp));
>
> This way, the stack register update is guaranteed to execute in the
> stack segment shadow. Otherwise, the compiler is free to insert some
> unrelated instruction in between. It probably won't happen in practice
> in this case, but the compiler can be quite creative with moving asm
> arguments around.
>
It also doesn't matter: setting the SS segment is not needed when running in
64-bit mode, so whether or not the RSP update occurs immediately after is
irrelevant.
