>>> On 20.02.17 at 16:12, wrote:
On 20.02.17 at 15:52, wrote:
>> Having said that, shouldn't the pfx check be included even in the
>> VEX-encoded case? (i.e. the lables move up once again).
>
> It's the other way around actually: The checks are redundant in
> the non-VEX case, as the prefi
>>> On 20.02.17 at 15:52, wrote:
> On 15/02/17 11:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -6183,6 +6200,23 @@ x86_emulate(
>> case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0xae): case X86EMUL_OPC_66(0x0f, 0xae): /* Grp15
>> */
>>
On 15/02/17 11:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -6183,6 +6200,23 @@ x86_emulate(
> case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0xae): case X86EMUL_OPC_66(0x0f, 0xae): /* Grp15
> */
> switch ( modrm_reg & 7 )
>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v3: Re-base.
--- a/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/x86-insn-emulator-fuzzer.c
+++ b/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/x86-insn-emulator-fuzzer.c
@@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ int LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput(const uint8_t
};
int rc;
-stack_exec = emul_test_mak
