Re: wrong placement of RIP-relative address computing

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 06/16/2011 02:00 PM, Li, Xin wrote:
> >  diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> >  index 6df88c7..e269d20 100644
> >  --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> >  +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> >  @@ -3547,9 +3547,6 @@ done_prefixes:
> >          if (memop.type == OP_MEM&&  c->ad_bytes != 8)
> >                  memop.addr.mem.ea = (u32)memop.addr.mem.ea;
> >
> >  -       if (memop.type == OP_MEM&&  c->rip_relative)
> >  -               memop.addr.mem.ea += c->eip;
> >  -
> >          /*
> >           * Decode and fetch the source operand: register, memory
> >           * or immediate.
> >  @@ -3704,6 +3701,9 @@ done_prefixes:
> >          }
> >
> >   done:
>
> It's not correct to move here, I saw some other problem.
>
> >  +       if (memop.type == OP_MEM&&  c->rip_relative)
> >  +               memop.addr.mem.ea += c->eip;
> >  +
> >          return (rc == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE) ? EMULATION_FAILED :
> >  EMULATION_OK;
>

There's the "return 0" in the previous switch, but otherwise I think 
it's correct.  We didn't take into account the complete instruction length.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function