Am 13.05.19 um 09:10 schrieb Ulrich Windl: >>>> tedheadster <tedheads...@gmail.com> schrieb am 11.05.2019 um 19:19 in >>>> Nachricht > <CAP8WD_Y69T_2gk4+gUan4vKozAYtv_djF7cJ=uuio8j54d6...@mail.gmail.com>: >> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:30 PM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >>> Can you capture register contents at the point of the crash? >>> >>> Does this reproduce in a chroot? Maybe you can trace the whole thing >>> with a debugger. Does the crash reproduce if you single-step through >>> the whole function? >> >> Florian, >> I figured out the problem, I just haven't written code to fix it. >> The documentation I can find is silent about what is returned in %ecx >> and %ebx when calling cpuid function 0x00000001 on IDT Winchip-C6 and >> Winchip2. >> >> I think %ecx should properly contain 0x00000000, but it instead puts >> the 'auls' characters from cpuid function 0x00000000 (vendor string >> 'CentaurHauls') in %ecx: >> >> %ebx = 0x746e6543 = "Cent" >> %edx = 0x48727561 = "aurH" >> %ecx = 0x736c7561 = "auls" >> >> This sets bit 30 (0x736c7561) 'on', the 'supports rdrand' bit. >> >> So we have to code around the vendor and chip model in this case. >> Jeffrey Walton gave some coding examples I might consider >> (https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/blob/master/cpu.cpp#L380). > > > I didn't see the start of this thread, but is it another attempt to > re-implement /proc/cpuinfo's flags?
can you please stop all that trolling? cpuid has *nothing* to do with /proc/cpuinfo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID The CPUID instruction (identified by a CPUID opcode) is a processor supplementary instruction _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
