Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86emul: fix {,i}mul and {,i}div

2016-09-29 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:08:10AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit a3db233ede ("x86emul: use DstEax also for {,I}{MUL,DIV}") went
> a little too far: DstEax and SrcEax weren't really meant to be used
> together with ModRM - they assume modrm_reg remains zero by the time
> the destination / source register pointer gets calculated. Don't fully
> undo that commit though, but instead just correct the register pointer,
> and don't use dst.val as input for mul and imul (div and idiv did avoid
> that already).
> 
> Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 

and
Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86emul: fix {,i}mul and {,i}div

2016-09-29 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 29/09/16 14:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit a3db233ede ("x86emul: use DstEax also for {,I}{MUL,DIV}") went
> a little too far: DstEax and SrcEax weren't really meant to be used
> together with ModRM - they assume modrm_reg remains zero by the time
> the destination / source register pointer gets calculated. Don't fully
> undo that commit though, but instead just correct the register pointer,
> and don't use dst.val as input for mul and imul (div and idiv did avoid
> that already).
>
> Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich 

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper 

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


[Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86emul: fix {,i}mul and {,i}div

2016-09-29 Thread Jan Beulich
Commit a3db233ede ("x86emul: use DstEax also for {,I}{MUL,DIV}") went
a little too far: DstEax and SrcEax weren't really meant to be used
together with ModRM - they assume modrm_reg remains zero by the time
the destination / source register pointer gets calculated. Don't fully
undo that commit though, but instead just correct the register pointer,
and don't use dst.val as input for mul and imul (div and idiv did avoid
that already).

Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich 

--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -3845,18 +3845,19 @@ x86_emulate(
 emulate_1op("neg", dst, _regs.eflags);
 break;
 case 4: /* mul */
+dst.reg = (unsigned long *)&_regs.eax;
 _regs.eflags &= ~(EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF);
 switch ( dst.bytes )
 {
 case 1:
-dst.val = (uint8_t)dst.val;
+dst.val = (uint8_t)_regs.eax;
 dst.val *= src.val;
 if ( (uint8_t)dst.val != (uint16_t)dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 dst.bytes = 2;
 break;
 case 2:
-dst.val = (uint16_t)dst.val;
+dst.val = (uint16_t)_regs.eax;
 dst.val *= src.val;
 if ( (uint16_t)dst.val != (uint32_t)dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
@@ -3864,7 +3865,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 break;
 #ifdef __x86_64__
 case 4:
-dst.val = (uint32_t)dst.val;
+dst.val = _regs._eax;
 dst.val *= src.val;
 if ( (uint32_t)dst.val != dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
@@ -3873,7 +3874,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 #endif
 default:
 u[0] = src.val;
-u[1] = dst.val;
+u[1] = _regs.eax;
 if ( mul_dbl(u) )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 _regs.edx = u[1];
@@ -3882,12 +3883,13 @@ x86_emulate(
 }
 break;
 case 5: /* imul */
+dst.reg = (unsigned long *)&_regs.eax;
 imul:
 _regs.eflags &= ~(EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF);
 switch ( dst.bytes )
 {
 case 1:
-dst.val = (int8_t)src.val * (int8_t)dst.val;
+dst.val = (int8_t)src.val * (int8_t)_regs.eax;
 if ( (int8_t)dst.val != (int16_t)dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 ASSERT(b > 0x6b);
@@ -3895,7 +3897,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 break;
 case 2:
 dst.val = ((uint32_t)(int16_t)src.val *
-   (uint32_t)(int16_t)dst.val);
+   (uint32_t)(int16_t)_regs.eax);
 if ( (int16_t)dst.val != (int32_t)dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 if ( b > 0x6b )
@@ -3904,7 +3906,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 #ifdef __x86_64__
 case 4:
 dst.val = ((uint64_t)(int32_t)src.val *
-   (uint64_t)(int32_t)dst.val);
+   (uint64_t)(int32_t)_regs.eax);
 if ( (int32_t)dst.val != dst.val )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 if ( b > 0x6b )
@@ -3913,7 +3915,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 #endif
 default:
 u[0] = src.val;
-u[1] = dst.val;
+u[1] = _regs.eax;
 if ( imul_dbl(u) )
 _regs.eflags |= EFLG_OF|EFLG_CF;
 if ( b > 0x6b )
@@ -3923,6 +3925,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 }
 break;
 case 6: /* div */
+dst.reg = (unsigned long *)&_regs.eax;
 switch ( src.bytes )
 {
 case 1:
@@ -3968,6 +3971,7 @@ x86_emulate(
 }
 break;
 case 7: /* idiv */
+dst.reg = (unsigned long *)&_regs.eax;
 switch ( src.bytes )
 {
 case 1:


x86emul: fix {,i}mul and {,i}div

Commit a3db233ede ("x86emul: use DstEax also for {,I}{MUL,DIV}") went
a little too far: DstEax and SrcEax weren't really meant to be used
together with ModRM - they assume modrm_reg remains zero by the time
the destination / source register pointer gets calculated. Don't fully
undo that commit though, but instead just correct the register pointer,
and don't use dst.val as input for mul and imul (div and idiv did avoid
that already).

Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich 

--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -3845,18 +3845,19 @@ x86_emulate(
 emulate_1op("neg", dst, _regs.eflags);
 break;