[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160127180932.670572900@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:11:09 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 4.3 002/157] x86/mpx: Fix instruction decoder condition
4.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
commit 8e8efe0379bd93e8219ca0fc6fa80b5dd85b09cb upstream.
MPX decodes instructions in order to tell which bounds register
was violated. Part of this decoding involves looking at the "REX
prefix" which is a special instrucion prefix used to retrofit
support for new registers in to old instructions.
The X86_REX_*() macros are defined to return actual bit values:
#define X86_REX_R(rex) ((rex) & 4)
*not* boolean values. However, the MPX code was checking for
them like they were booleans. This might have led to us
mis-decoding the "REX prefix" and giving false information out to
userspace about bounds violations. X86_REX_B() actually is bit 1,
so this is really only broken for the X86_REX_X() case.
Fix the conditionals up to tolerate the non-boolean values.
Fixes: fcc7ffd67991 "x86, mpx: Decode MPX instruction to get bound violation information"
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151201003113.D800C1E0@viggo.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/x86/mm/mpx.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
@@ -101,19 +101,19 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *i
switch (type) {
case REG_TYPE_RM:
regno = X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value);
- if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value) == 1)
+ if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value))
regno += 8;
break;
case REG_TYPE_INDEX:
regno = X86_SIB_INDEX(insn->sib.value);
- if (X86_REX_X(insn->rex_prefix.value) == 1)
+ if (X86_REX_X(insn->rex_prefix.value))
regno += 8;
break;
case REG_TYPE_BASE:
regno = X86_SIB_BASE(insn->sib.value);
- if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value) == 1)
+ if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value))
regno += 8;
break;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists