>>> On 20.02.17 at 16:12, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 20.02.17 at 15:52, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> 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 prefix is included in the opcode (see the > handling of 0xae in x86_decode_twobyte()).
Actually no, this sits on a path handling un-prefixed as well as 66- prefixed instructions. This could be disentangled eventually. The VEX part is fine as is, as there is no handling of an (VEX-encoded) prefixes there. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
