[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170607131550.y6zpkaggfsbinjo2@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:15:50 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 14/26] x86/insn-eval: Indicate a 32-bit displacement
if ModRM.mod is 0 and ModRM.rm is 5
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:12AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Section 2.2.1.3 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
> Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when ModRM.mod is zero and
> ModRM.rm is 101b, a 32-bit displacement follows the ModRM byte. This means
> that none of the registers are used in the computation of the effective
> address. A return value of -EDOM signals callers that they should not use
> the value of registers when computing the effective address for the
> instruction.
>
> In IA-32e 64-bit mode (long mode), the effective address is given by the
> 32-bit displacement plus the value of RIP of the next instruction.
> In IA-32e compatibility mode (protected mode), only the displacement is
> used.
>
> The instruction decoder takes care of obtaining the displacement.
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> index 693e5a8..4f600de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,12 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs,
> switch (type) {
> case REG_TYPE_RM:
> regno = X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value);
<---- newline here.
> + /*
> + * ModRM.mod == 0 and ModRM.rm == 5 means a 32-bit displacement
> + * follows the ModRM byte.
> + */
> + if (!X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) && regno == 5)
> + return -EDOM;
> if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value))
> regno += 8;
> break;
> @@ -730,9 +736,21 @@ void __user *insn_get_addr_ref(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs)
> eff_addr = base + indx * (1 << X86_SIB_SCALE(sib));
> } else {
> addr_offset = get_reg_offset(insn, regs, REG_TYPE_RM);
> - if (addr_offset < 0)
ditto.
> + /*
> + * -EDOM means that we must ignore the address_offset.
> + * In such a case, in 64-bit mode the effective address
> + * relative to the RIP of the following instruction.
> + */
> + if (addr_offset == -EDOM) {
> + eff_addr = 0;
> + if (user_64bit_mode(regs))
> + eff_addr = (long)regs->ip +
> + insn->length;
Let that line stick out and write it balanced:
if (addr_offset == -EDOM) {
if (user_64bit_mode(regs))
eff_addr = (long)regs->ip + insn->length;
else
eff_addr = 0;
should be easier parseable this way.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists