[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201205101435.GA26409@zn.tnic>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 11:14:35 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/uprobes: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for
loop over prefixes.bytes
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 09:10:32AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> In the future, if x86 ISA is expanded and add a legacy prefix
> groups,
Very unlikely.
> then we have to add new insn_prefix_field data structure, which
> size will not depend on NUM_INSN_FIELD_BYTES, but still depend on
> MAX_LEGACY_PREFIX_GROUPS (and that will be 5).
Isn't that what I'm saying too?
Bottomline is, legacy prefixes should not use insn_field but a separate
element which array size is independent of insn_byte_t bytes[4].
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists