Il 17/08/2013 10:23, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> What Paolo posted seems almost identical.
>
> clz32(l): leading zeros in "l"
> qemu_fls(l) == 32 - clz32(l): position of leftmost bit set, 1-based
> qemu_fls(l) - 1: position of leftmost bit set, 0-based
>
> Not sure
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 08:33 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 16/08/2013 23:58, Alex Williamson ha scritto:
> > Since commit 23326164 we align access sizes to match the alignment of
> > the address, but we don't align the access size itself. This means we
> > let illegal access sizes (ex. 3) slip t
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 10:23 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/16/13 23:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Since commit 23326164 we align access sizes to match the alignment of
> > the address, but we don't align the access size itself. This means we
> > let illegal access sizes (ex. 3) slip through i
(side point)
On 08/17/13 10:23, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> if (l >= access_size_max) {
> return access_size_max;
> }
> return 1 << max(3, lmb(l));
lol, of course this should have been min()...
Alex's patch is OK of course.
Laszlo
On 08/16/13 23:58, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Since commit 23326164 we align access sizes to match the alignment of
> the address, but we don't align the access size itself. This means we
> let illegal access sizes (ex. 3) slip through if the address is
> sufficiently aligned (ex. 4). This results
Il 16/08/2013 23:58, Alex Williamson ha scritto:
> Since commit 23326164 we align access sizes to match the alignment of
> the address, but we don't align the access size itself. This means we
> let illegal access sizes (ex. 3) slip through if the address is
> sufficiently aligned (ex. 4). This r
Since commit 23326164 we align access sizes to match the alignment of
the address, but we don't align the access size itself. This means we
let illegal access sizes (ex. 3) slip through if the address is
sufficiently aligned (ex. 4). This results in an abort which would be
easy for a guest to tri
