On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:06:44 +0100
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:56:53AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Hmm, there is a difference between Intel SDM and AMD APM.
> >
> > Intel SDM vol.2
> >
> > 2.1.1 Instruction Prefixes
> > Instruction prefixes are divided into four
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:56:53AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hmm, there is a difference between Intel SDM and AMD APM.
>
> Intel SDM vol.2
>
> 2.1.1 Instruction Prefixes
> Instruction prefixes are divided into four groups, each with a set of
> allowable prefix codes. For each
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:56:53 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:49:46 -0600
> Tom Lendacky wrote:
>
> > On 12/3/20 12:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:10:10PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > >> Since that struct is used in multiple places, I think
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:49:46 -0600
Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 12/3/20 12:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:10:10PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> Since that struct is used in multiple places, I think basing it on the
> >> array
> >> size is the best way to go. The main
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:37:57 +0100
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:50:37PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Since the insn.prefixes.nbytes can be bigger than the size of
> > insn.prefixes.bytes[] when a same prefix is repeated, we have to
> > check whether the
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:45:48 -0600
Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 12/3/20 6:48 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > So it ended up like this:
> >
> > ---
> > From 5014e4e902778d63ce392f864b3654baa4b72384 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu
> > Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:50:37 +0900
> >
On 12/3/20 12:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:10:10PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
Since that struct is used in multiple places, I think basing it on the array
size is the best way to go. The main point of the check is just to be sure
you don't read outside of the array.
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:10:10PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Since that struct is used in multiple places, I think basing it on the array
> size is the best way to go. The main point of the check is just to be sure
> you don't read outside of the array.
Well, what happens if someone increases
On 12/3/20 11:01 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:54:20PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:45:48AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
Since this is based on the array size, can
idx < NUM_LEGACY_PREFIXES
be replaced with:
idx <
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:54:20PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:45:48AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > Since this is based on the array size, can
> >
> > idx < NUM_LEGACY_PREFIXES
> >
> > be replaced with:
> >
> > idx < ARRAY_SIZE(insn->prefixes.bytes)
>
>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:45:48AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> Since this is based on the array size, can
>
> idx < NUM_LEGACY_PREFIXES
>
> be replaced with:
>
> idx < ARRAY_SIZE(insn->prefixes.bytes)
Actually, this needs another change:
struct insn_field {
union {
On 12/3/20 6:48 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
So it ended up like this:
---
From 5014e4e902778d63ce392f864b3654baa4b72384 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:50:37 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] x86/uprobes: Do not use prefixes.nbytes when looping over
So it ended up like this:
---
>From 5014e4e902778d63ce392f864b3654baa4b72384 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:50:37 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] x86/uprobes: Do not use prefixes.nbytes when looping over
prefixes.bytes
Since insn.prefixes.nbytes can be bigger
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:37:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Btw, looking at the struct insn definition, that prefixes member should
> have a comment above it that those are the legacy prefixes which can be
> <= 4. But that's minor.
And that naked 4 is poking my eye too - It'd be better if
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:50:37PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Since the insn.prefixes.nbytes can be bigger than the size of
> insn.prefixes.bytes[] when a same prefix is repeated, we have to
> check whether the insn.prefixes.bytes[i] != 0 and i < 4 instead
> of insn.prefixes.nbytes.
> This
15 matches
Mail list logo
