On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:04:52PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> However using the union could be less readable than having two almost
> identical functions.
So having some small duplication for the sake of clarity and readability
is much better, if you ask me. And it's not like you're duplicating
On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 15:26 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:48:13PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > I meant to say the 4 most significant bytes. In this case, the
> > 64-address 0x1234 would lie in the kernel memory while
> > 0x1234 would correctly be in
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:48:13PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> I meant to say the 4 most significant bytes. In this case, the
> 64-address 0x1234 would lie in the kernel memory while
> 0x1234 would correctly be in the user space memory.
That explanation is better.
> Yes, perhaps
I am sorry Boris, while working on this series I missed a few of your
feedback comments.
On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 17:48 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:14AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > The 32-bit and 64-bit address encodings are identical. This means that we
> > can
On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 17:49 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:14AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > @@ -697,18 +753,21 @@ void __user *insn_get_addr_ref(struct insn *insn,
> > struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > unsigned long linear_addr, seg_base_addr, seg_limit;
> >
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:14AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> @@ -697,18 +753,21 @@ void __user *insn_get_addr_ref(struct insn *insn,
> struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> unsigned long linear_addr, seg_base_addr, seg_limit;
> long eff_addr, base, indx;
> - int addr_offset,
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:14AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> The 32-bit and 64-bit address encodings are identical. This means that we
> can use the same function in both cases. In order to reuse the function
> for 32-bit address encodings, we must sign-extend our 32-bit signed
> operands to
