>>> On 25.09.17 at 11:16, wrote:
> @@ -7750,6 +7742,9 @@ x86_emulate(
> unimplemented_insn:
> rc = X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED;
> goto done;
> +unrecognized_insn:
> +rc = X86EMUL_UNRECOGNIZED;
> +goto done;
> }
> Do you find
On Jo, 2017-09-21 at 06:42 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 21.09.17 at 07:12, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> > @@ -6195,7 +6196,7 @@ x86_emulate(
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU [mailto:ppircal...@bitdefender.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2017 19:57
> To: Paul Durrant ; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Wei Liu
> ;
On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 08:53 +, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > }
> > +case X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED:
> > +ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> > +/* Fall-through */
>
> Kind of surprised you need the fall-through if you assert the code is
> unreachable... but analysis tools can be a bit
>>> On 21.09.17 at 07:12, wrote:
> Changed since v11:
> * Fixed double negative in the patch description.
> * Move assertion into the switch and use ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() when
> applicable.
> * Changed the description of X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED /
>>> On 21.09.17 at 07:12, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -6195,7 +6196,7 @@ x86_emulate(
> /* vpsll{w,d} $imm8,{x,y}mm,{x,y}mm */
> break;
> default:
> -
> -Original Message-
> From: Petre Pircalabu [mailto:ppircal...@bitdefender.com]
> Sent: 21 September 2017 06:12
> To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Cc: Ian Jackson ; Wei Liu ;
> Andrew Cooper ; George Dunlap
>
Enforce the distinction between an instruction not implemented by the
emulator and the failure to emulate that instruction by defining a new
return code, X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED.
This value should only be returned by the core emulator only if it fails to
properly decode the current instruction's