Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 13/25] x86emul: adjust_bnd() should check XCR0

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.02.18 at 14:30, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/12/17 14:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Experimentally MPX instructions have been confirmed to behave as NOPs
>> unless both related XCR0 bits are set to 1. By implication branches
>> then also don't clear BNDn.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -2143,12 +2143,16 @@ static bool umip_active(struct x86_emula
>>  static void adjust_bnd(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
>>                         const struct x86_emulate_ops *ops, enum vex_pfx pfx)
>>  {
>> -    uint64_t bndcfg;
>> +    uint64_t xcr0, bndcfg;
>>      int rc;
>>  
>>      if ( pfx == vex_f2 || !cpu_has_mpx || !vcpu_has_mpx() )
>>          return;
>>  
>> +    if ( !ops->read_xcr || ops->read_xcr(0, &xcr0, ctxt) != X86EMUL_OKAY ||
>> +         !(xcr0 & XSTATE_BNDREGS) || !(xcr0 & XSTATE_BNDCSR) )
> 
> !(xcr0 & (XSTATE_BNDREGS | XSTATE_BNDCSR)) ?

No, I mean "if either bit is clear", not "if both bits are clear". I think
we had discussed before that both bits need to be 1 in order for
bounds checking to actually work.

> Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

Please clarify this in light of the above.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel