lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:27:50 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Have insn decoder functions return success/failure On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:50:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Agreed. So I'm OK for returning the result of "decoding". > But we also need to note that the returning success doesn't > mean the instruction is valid. That needs another validator. > ... > > Yes, so let's add the return value (with a note, so that someone > does not try to use it for validation). Ok, I'm unclear on that "validation" you talk about. What exactly do you mean? Can you give an example of how one would determine whether an instruction is valid? And valid how? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists