[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53582A26.6040408@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:01:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...technion.ac.il>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] KVM: x86: RSI/RDI/RCX are zero-extended when affected
by string ops
On 04/23/2014 01:53 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>> Err, operand size is forced to 64-bits, not address size.
>>
>> "The following aspects of near branches are controlled by the effective
>> operand size:
>> • Truncation of the size of the instruction pointer"
>>
>> Still, "67h call" should not truncate EIP (which your patch does).
>>
> Yes, I missed it.
> But if I am not mistaken again, it means that the existing
> implementation of jmp_rel is broken as well when address-size override
> prefix is used. In this case, as I see it, the existing masking would
> cause the carry from the add operation to the lower half of the rip not
> to be added to the rip higher half.
>
> I guess another patch is needed for that as well.
>
Yes, on x86 JMP really should be thought of as "MOV ...,IP/EIP/RIP". On
some other architectures, e.g. m68k, JMP acts as if it was
"LEA ...,PC", which causes some serious confusion for people familiar
with that model. However, on x86 considering JMP as a MOV to the IP
register really is very consistent and will give you the right mental model.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists