From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752574AbbDCRu3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:50:29 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:58405 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751923AbbDCRu1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:50:27 -0400
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:48:24 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xsave: Robustify and merge macros
Message-ID: <20150403174824.GL3418@pd.tnic>
References: <1427980282-25929-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <20150402155210.GB6703@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150402161259.GE3483@pd.tnic>
 <20150403140630.GD14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403141426.GE14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403152324.GG3418@pd.tnic>
 <20150403154055.GF14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
 <20150403170625.GJ3418@pd.tnic>
 <20150403173306.GG14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150403173306.GG14902@chrystal.uk.oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > Basically, the idea was:
> > 
> > .skip len(repl1) - len(orig), 0x90
> > .skip len(repl2) - len(repl1), 0x90
> > 
> > BUT!, for some reason I changed it to what's there now and I can't
> > remember why anymore.
> 
> I think it would not work in the case where repl1 is smaller or equal than
> orig_insn (i.e. no padding in the first .skip) but orig_insn is strictly
> smaller than repl2 (since we're never comparing repl2 with insn in this
> new-old code).

orig_insn=4
repl1=3
repl2=5

.skip 0, 0x90
.skip 2, 0x90

I think that still works, only the padding is larger than it needs to
be. And it is so many bytes larger as len(abs(repl1 - orig_insn)) is.

In the example above, we'll get two bytes padding while only 1 suffices.

> Anything wrong with the two different approaches I've suggested in my
> original mail?

Right now, I want to have a minimal fix for obvious reasons. We can
always improve stuff later when there's more time.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--