Re: [v6 PATCH 12/21] x86/insn: Support both signed 32-bit and 64-bit effective addresses

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 13:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:33:46PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > This is the reason I check the value of long_bytes. If long_bytes is not
> > 4, being the only other possible value 8 (perhaps I need to issue an
> > error when the value is not any of these values),
> Well, maybe I'm a bit too paranoid. Bottom line is, we should do the
> address computations exactly like the hardware does them so that there
> are no surprises. Doing them with longs looks ok to me.

Using long is exactly what I intend to do. The problem that I am trying
to resolve is to sign-extend signed memory offsets of 32-bit programs
running on 64-bit kernels. For 64-bit programs running on 64-bit kernels
I can simply use longs. I added error checking in my v7 of this series

Thanks and BR,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Console]     [Linux Audio]     [Linux for Hams]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux