Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2017-01-03 Thread Ricardo Neri
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 08:41 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 12/27/2016 02:33 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> index 6a75a75..71681d0 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> @@ -120,6 +120,13 @@ static int

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2017-01-03 Thread Ricardo Neri
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 08:41 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 12/27/2016 02:33 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> index 6a75a75..71681d0 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c > >>> @@ -120,6 +120,13 @@ static int

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2017-01-03 Thread Dave Hansen
On 12/27/2016 02:33 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> index 6a75a75..71681d0 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> @@ -120,6 +120,13 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct >>> pt_regs *regs, >>> >>>

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2017-01-03 Thread Dave Hansen
On 12/27/2016 02:33 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> index 6a75a75..71681d0 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c >>> @@ -120,6 +120,13 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct >>> pt_regs *regs, >>> >>>

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-27 Thread Ricardo Neri
On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 17:58 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri > wrote: > > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software > > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-27 Thread Ricardo Neri
On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 17:58 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri > wrote: > > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software > > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no > > explicit displacement (i.e, mod

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-23 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no > explicit displacement (i.e, mod part of ModR/M is 0), a SIB

Re: [v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-23 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote: > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no > explicit displacement (i.e, mod part of ModR/M is 0), a SIB byte is used > and the base of the SIB

[v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-23 Thread Ricardo Neri
Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no explicit displacement (i.e, mod part of ModR/M is 0), a SIB byte is used and the base of the SIB byte points to (R/EBP) (i.e., base = 5), an explicit

[v2 2/7] x86/mpx: Fail when implicit zero-displacement is used along with R/EBP

2016-12-23 Thread Ricardo Neri
Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when memory addressing with no explicit displacement (i.e, mod part of ModR/M is 0), a SIB byte is used and the base of the SIB byte points to (R/EBP) (i.e., base = 5), an explicit