Re: [PATCH v7 12/26] x86/insn-eval: Add utility functions to get segment descriptor base address and limit

[Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 18:58 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:10AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > With segmentation, the base address of the segment descriptor is needed
> > to compute a linear address. The segment descriptor used in the address
> > computation depends on either any segment override prefixes in the
> > instruction or the default segment determined by the registers involved
> > in the address computation. Thus, both the instruction as well as the
> > register (specified as the offset from the base of pt_regs) are given as
> > inputs, along with a boolean variable to select between override and
> > default.
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > index f46cb31..c77ed80 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > @@ -476,6 +476,133 @@ static struct desc_struct *get_desc(unsigned short sel)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > + * insn_get_seg_base() - Obtain base address of segment descriptor.
> > + * @regs:	Structure with register values as seen when entering kernel mode
> > + * @insn:	Instruction structure with selector override prefixes
> > + * @regoff:	Operand offset, in pt_regs, of which the selector is needed
> > + *
> > + * Obtain the base address of the segment descriptor as indicated by either
> > + * any segment override prefixes contained in insn or the default segment
> > + * applicable to the register indicated by regoff. regoff is specified as the
> > + * offset in bytes from the base of pt_regs.
> > + *
> > + * Return: In protected mode, base address of the segment. Zero in for long
> > + * mode, except when FS or GS are used. In virtual-8086 mode, the segment
> > + * selector shifted 4 positions to the right. -1L in case of
> > + * error.
> > + */
> > +unsigned long insn_get_seg_base(struct pt_regs *regs, struct insn *insn,
> > +				int regoff)
> > +{
> > +	struct desc_struct *desc;
> > +	unsigned short sel;
> > +	enum segment_register seg_reg;
> > +
> > +	seg_reg = resolve_seg_register(insn, regs, regoff);
> > +	if (seg_reg == SEG_REG_INVAL)
> > +		return -1L;
> > +
> > +	sel = get_segment_selector(regs, seg_reg);
> > +	if ((short)sel < 0)
> 
> I guess it would be better if that function returned a signed short so
> you don't have to cast it here. (You're casting it to an unsigned long
> below anyway.)

Yes, this make sense. I will make this change.
> 
> > +		return -1L;
> > +
> > +	if (v8086_mode(regs))
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Base is simply the segment selector shifted 4
> > +		 * positions to the right.
> > +		 */
> > +		return (unsigned long)(sel << 4);
> > +
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static unsigned long get_seg_limit(struct pt_regs *regs, struct insn *insn,
> > +				   int regoff)
> > +{
> > +	struct desc_struct *desc;
> > +	unsigned short sel;
> > +	unsigned long limit;
> > +	enum segment_register seg_reg;
> > +
> > +	seg_reg = resolve_seg_register(insn, regs, regoff);
> > +	if (seg_reg == SEG_REG_INVAL)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	sel = get_segment_selector(regs, seg_reg);
> > +	if ((short)sel < 0)
> 
> Ditto.

Here as well.

> 
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	if (user_64bit_mode(regs) || v8086_mode(regs))
> > +		return -1L;
> > +
> > +	if (!sel)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	desc = get_desc(sel);
> > +	if (!desc)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the granularity bit is set, the limit is given in multiples
> > +	 * of 4096. When the granularity bit is set, the least 12 significant
> 
> 						     the 12 least significant bits
> 
> > +	 * bits are not tested when checking the segment limits. In practice,
> > +	 * this means that the segment ends in (limit << 12) + 0xfff.
> > +	 */
> > +	limit = get_desc_limit(desc);
> > +	if (desc->g)
> > +		limit <<= 12 | 0x7;
> 
> That 0x7 doesn't look like 0xfff - it shifts limit by 15 instead. You
> can simply write it like you mean it:
> 
> 	limit = (limit << 12) + 0xfff;

You are right, this wrong. I will implement as you mention.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo