On Wednesday, 2021-04-21 at 09:26:34 -07, Jim Mattson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:39 AM David Edmondson <dme@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 2021-04-20 at 18:34:48 UTC, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, Aaron Lewis wrote: >> >> + KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION_FLAG_INSTRUCTION_BYTES; >> >> + vcpu->run->emulation_failure.insn_size = insn_size; >> >> + memcpy(vcpu->run->emulation_failure.insn_bytes, >> >> + ctxt->fetch.data, sizeof(ctxt->fetch.data)); >> > >> > Doesn't truly matter, but I think it's less confusing to copy over insn_size >> > bytes. > >> And zero out the rest? > > Why zero? Since we're talking about an instruction stream, wouldn't > 0x90 make more sense than zero? I'm not sure if you are serious or not. Zero-ing out the rest was intended to be to avoid leaking any previous emulated instruction stream. If the user-level code wants to start looking for instructions after insn_bytes[insn_size], they get what they deserve. dme. -- We're deep in discussion, the party's on mute.
