On 07/03/16 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.03.16 at 17:11, wrote:
>> On 07/03/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.03.16 at 16:43, wrote:
On 04/03/16 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
> data, not even in a benign wa
>>> On 07.03.16 at 17:11, wrote:
> On 07/03/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.03.16 at 16:43, wrote:
>>> On 04/03/16 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
data, not even in a benign way. And relax the length check at once.
On 07/03/16 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.03.16 at 16:43, wrote:
>> On 04/03/16 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
>>> data, not even in a benign way. And relax the length check at once.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>>
>>> -
>>> On 07.03.16 at 16:43, wrote:
> On 04/03/16 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
>> data, not even in a benign way. And relax the length check at once.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
>> +++ b/xen/a
On 04/03/16 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
> data, not even in a benign way. And relax the length check at once.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@
Make sure the near JMP/CALL check doesn't consume uninitialized
data, not even in a benign way. And relax the length check at once.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/alternative.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static void __init apply_alternatives(st
m
