* Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> [2017-09-14 19:52:21 +0000]: > On 2017-09-14 19:05, Gustavo Lima Chaves wrote: > >>> break; > >>> } else if (op[2].modrm.rm != 4) { /* no SIB */ > >>> break; > >>> @@ -168,6 +191,16 @@ restart: > >>> else > >>> inst.reg_num = 15 - op[2].modrm.reg; > >>> > >>> +final: > >>> + /* FIXME: what if an instruction with immediate spans two > >>> + * pages? */ > >> > >> That has to be addressed (another reason to split the patch, because we > >> can then already handle the other two instructions). Just look at how we > >> do this for the instruction so far and follow the same path. > > > > I suspect this is not done in this file (before one would collect all > > the state needed progressively), but I'll sure search better how to > > achieve that. > > You need ctx_advance for each instruction byte you want to read (you > don't need it to just skip over an instruction).
Sure, but my doubt is, when advancing to a new page, will the inst_start pointer arithmetic still make sense? I guess it will, since the adressing should be linear—maybe we're already covered? I still did not look into it, will do soon. > > Jan > -- > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE > Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jailhouse" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Gustavo Lima Chaves Intel - Open Source Technology Center -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
