[Pkg-xen-changes] r1129 - in branches/wheezy/xen/debian: . patches

[Bastian Blank]

Author: waldi
Date: Tue Dec 11 13:32:15 2012
New Revision: 1129

Log:
* debian/changelog: Update.
* debian/patches: Add fix for clock jump.

Added:
   branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/upstream-26188:16bf7f3069a7
Modified:
   branches/wheezy/xen/debian/changelog
   branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/series

Modified: branches/wheezy/xen/debian/changelog
==============================================================================
--- branches/wheezy/xen/debian/changelog	Tue Dec  4 10:34:16 2012	(r1128)
+++ branches/wheezy/xen/debian/changelog	Tue Dec 11 13:32:15 2012	(r1129)
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+xen (4.1.3-7) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+  * Fix clock jump due to incorrect annotated inline assembler.
+    (closes: #599161)
+
+ -- Bastian Blank <waldi at debian.org>  Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:29:57 +0100
+
 xen (4.1.3-6) unstable; urgency=high
 
   * Fix error handling in physical to machine memory mapping.

Modified: branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/series
==============================================================================
--- branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/series	Tue Dec  4 10:34:16 2012	(r1128)
+++ branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/series	Tue Dec 11 13:32:15 2012	(r1129)
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 upstream-23938:fa04fbd56521-rework
 upstream-23939:51288f69523f-rework
 upstream-25290:7a6dcecb1781-rework
+upstream-26188:16bf7f3069a7
 
 CVE-2012-3494
 CVE-2012-3495

Added: branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/upstream-26188:16bf7f3069a7
==============================================================================
--- /dev/null	00:00:00 1970	(empty, because file is newly added)
+++ branches/wheezy/xen/debian/patches/upstream-26188:16bf7f3069a7	Tue Dec 11 13:32:15 2012	(r1129)
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Description: x86/time: fix scale_delta() inline assembly
+ The way it was coded, it clobbered %rdx without telling the compiler.
+ This generally didn't cause any problems except when there are two back
+ to back invocations (as in plt_overflow()), as in that case the
+ compiler may validly assume that it can re-use for the second instance
+ the value loaded into %rdx before the first one.
+ .
+ Once at it, also properly relax the second operand of "mul" (there's no
+ need for it to be in %rdx, or a register at all), and switch away from
+ using explicit register names in the instruction operands.
+From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse.com>
+Origin: upstream, commit:26188:16bf7f3069a7, commit:23415:d89986111f0c
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/599161
+
+--- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c       Mon Nov 19 09:43:48 2012 +0100
++++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c       Tue Nov 27 13:28:36 2012 +0100
+@@ -140,8 +140,9 @@
+         : "a" ((u32)delta), "1" ((u32)(delta >> 32)), "2" (scale->mul_frac) );
+ #else
+     asm (
+-        "mul %%rdx ; shrd $32,%%rdx,%%rax"
+-        : "=a" (product) : "0" (delta), "d" ((u64)scale->mul_frac) );
++        "mul %2 ; shrd $32,%1,%0"
++        : "=a" (product), "=d" (delta)
++        : "rm" (delta), "0" ((u64)scale->mul_frac) );
+ #endif
+
+     return product;