[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200102092733.GA8345@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 10:27:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] x86/insn-eval: Add support for 64-bit kernel mode
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:55:22PM +0900, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > In most cases you have struct insn around (or can easily pass it down to
> > the place). Why not use insn->x86_64?
>
> What populates that?
insn_init() AFAICT.
However, you have cases where you don't have struct insn:
fixup_umip_exception() uses it and it calls insn_get_seg_base() which
does use it too.
> FWIW, this code is a bit buggy: it gets EFI mixed mode wrong. I’m
> not entirely sure we care.
We'll cross that bridge when we get there, I'd say.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists