On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 09:02:48AM +0300, Eugene Korenevsky wrote: > Intel SDM vol. 3, 5.3: > The processor causes a > general-protection exception (or, if the segment is SS, a stack-fault > exception) any time an attempt is made to access the following addresses > in a segment: > - A byte at an offset greater than the effective limit > - A word at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 1) > - A doubleword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 3) > - A quadword at an offset greater than the (effective-limit – 7) > > Therefore, the generic limit checking error condition must be > > exn = (off > limit + 1 - access_len) = (off + access_len - 1 > limit) > > but not > > exn = (off + access_len > limit) > > as for now. > > Also avoid integer overflow of `off` at 32-bit KVM by casting it to u64. > > Note: access length is currently sizeof(u64) which is incorrect. This > will be fixed in the subsequent patch. > > Signed-off-by: Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@xxxxxxxxx> When sending a new revision of a patch, please add any supplied tags to the changelog, e.g. Reviewed-by, Tested-by, Acked-by, etc... For example, my Reviewed-by for v4 of this patch. The one situation where you don't want to carry tags is if you make non-trivial changes to a patch, e.g. person X reviews a patch but then it gets reworked based on feedback from person Y, in which case the Reviewed-by from X should be dropped as they haven't reviewed the new code. Thans for the patches! Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
