From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/emul: only emulate possibly operand
 sizes for POPA
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:10:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CCC0468D.51958%keir@xen.org>
References: <509A958E02000078000A7039@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <509A958E02000078000A7039@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/11/2012 16:08, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> This opcode neither support 1-byte operands, nor does it support 8-byte
> ones (since the opcode is undefined in 64-bit mode). Simplify the code
> accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> 
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -1996,13 +1996,10 @@ x86_emulate(
>              if ( (rc = read_ulong(x86_seg_ss, sp_post_inc(op_bytes),
>                                    &dst.val, op_bytes, ctxt, ops)) != 0 )
>                  goto done;
> -            switch ( op_bytes )
> -            {
> -            case 1: *(uint8_t  *)regs[i] = (uint8_t)dst.val; break;
> -            case 2: *(uint16_t *)regs[i] = (uint16_t)dst.val; break;
> -            case 4: *regs[i] = (uint32_t)dst.val; break; /* 64b: zero-ext */
> -            case 8: *regs[i] = dst.val; break;
> -            }
> +            if ( op_bytes != 2 )
> +                *regs[i] = (uint32_t)dst.val; /* 64b: zero-ext */
> +            else
> +                *(uint16_t *)regs[i] = (uint16_t)dst.val;

Would prefer:
 if ( op_bytes == 2 )
     *(uint16_t *)regs[i] = (uint16_t)dst.val;
 else
     *regs[i] = dst.val;

Handles the exceptional case immediately after its predicate. And the cast
from uint32_t, and 64b-related comment, are pointless and in fact misleading
in the default case, since as you say the instruction is invalid in 64-bit
mode.

Apart from that:
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

 -- Keir

>          }
>          break;
>      }
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel