On 26/10/16 10:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/10/16 09:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 25.10.16 at 20:10, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -2994,8 +2978,8 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> break;
>>>
>>> case 0x8e: /* mov r/m,Sreg */
>>> - seg = decode_segment(modrm_reg);
>>> - generate_exception_if(seg == decode_segment_failed, EXC_UD, -1);
>>> + seg = modrm_reg & 7; /* REX.R is ignored. */
>>> + generate_exception_if(!is_x86_user_segment(seg), EXC_UD, -1);
>>> generate_exception_if(seg == x86_seg_cs, EXC_UD, -1);
>> Can I talk you into folding these two generate_exception_if()s, as
>> they logically belong together?
> Ok.
>
>>> @@ -5438,6 +5422,17 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> #undef override_seg
>>> #undef ea
>>>
>>> +static void __init __maybe_unused build_assertions(void)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Check the values against SReg3 encoding in opcode/ModRM bytes. */
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_es != 0);
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_cs != 1);
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_ss != 2);
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_ds != 3);
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_fs != 4);
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_seg_gs != 5);
>>> +}
>> So using an inline function in the header did not work out?
> No - that would involve making BUILD_BUG_ON() available to x86_emulate.h
>
> In this position, it does also affect the test harness build, as it is
> outside an #ifdef __XEN__ block.
>
>> In any event,
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Thanks
Wei: Turns out that I typo'd the subject, and I meant "for 4.8" here, as
this is a bugfix in the emulator. Please can I get a view towards a
release ack?
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
