From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yang, Sheng" Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: emulator: Only allow VMCALL/VMMCALL trapped by #UD Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:23:14 +0800 Message-ID: <200801071823.15040.sheng.yang@intel.com> References: <200801040936.08670.sheng.yang@intel.com> <200801071021.12038.sheng.yang@intel.com> <4781EF63.4010201@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Eric Liu To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4781EF63.4010201-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Monday 07 January 2008 17:22:43 Avi Kivity wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > >> I have a vague plan for improving decode; basically extend the decode > >> tables to add group decoding. We add a bit to opcode_table and > >> twobyte_table that is set for all instructions which need group > >> decoding. When the bit is set, the rest of the value in opcode_table is > >> interpreted as an index (together with modrm_reg) into a new > >> group_table, so we can have different decoding for such instructions. > > > > I also have tried to propose a table for Grp opcode, but can't find a > > easy way. Using the rest of the value in opcode_table is a good idea, but > > I'm afraid the same value for different group exists, e.g. 0x82(Grp1) and > > 0xc0 (Grp2) got the same value as: ByteOp | DstMem | SrcImm | ModRM. If > > we add more factors to this, it would become unclear and more tricky, the > > table also may become larger... > > > > Currently, if we want to using group_table, I think the straightforward > > way is better: another big "switch"... The only exception is 1a, and we > > may use 0 instead of it. > > Not sure what you mean. I thought of adding code like > > > if (c->d & Group) { > c->group = c->d & GroupMask; I meant the c->d & GroupMask is not sufficient to indicate different group. For example, 0x82(Grp1) and 0xc0(Grp2) have same c->d & GroupMask = ByteOp | DstMem | SrcImm | ModRM. > // fetch modrm_reg > c->d = group_table[c->group * 8 + modrm_reg]; In this case, how can you deal with c->group = ByteOp | DstMem | SrcImm | ModRM, and modrm_reg = 6. Is it a XOR or nothing? > } > > Instruction execution could continue to be in the regular switch, but > the decode flags can be different for every instruction in the group. -- Thanks Yang, Sheng ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/