Re: [PATCH v7 16/26] x86/insn-eval: Support both signed 32-bit and 64-bit effective addresses

2017-07-27 Thread Ricardo Neri
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

Здравствуйте! Вас интересуют клиентские базы данных? Ответ на Email: prodawez...@gmail.com

2017-07-27 Thread sqlmbtbgtuegjdwroma...@fortador.com
Здравствуйте! Вас интересуют клиентские базы данных? Ответ на Email: prodawez...@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH v7 24/26] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

2017-07-27 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:44:08PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:10 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:22AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > User_mode Instruction Prevention (UMIP) is enabled by setting/clearing a > > > bit in %cr4. > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH v7 16/26] x86/insn-eval: Support both signed 32-bit and 64-bit effective addresses

2017-07-27 Thread Borislav Petkov
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