From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NqGka-00089S-Az for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:06:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43769 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NqGkZ-00088i-AK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:06:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NqGkW-00079H-Gd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:06:47 -0500 Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.164]:63480 helo=akado.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NqGkW-00079B-4r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:06:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:06:31 +0300 (MSK) From: malc In-Reply-To: <201003130045.22664.paul@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <201003130045.22664.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: linux-user issues List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Aurelien Jarno On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Paul Brook wrote: > > a) elfload.c:859 > > > > #define TARGET_ELF_PAGESTART(_v) ((_v) & ~(unsigned > > long)(TARGET_ELF_EXEC_PAGESIZE-1)) > > > > This means that for 64bit guest on a 32bit host the _v's value is > > silently reduced to 32bit, the cast should be abi_ulong. > > > > b) mmap.c:428 > > > > real_start = start & qemu_host_page_mask; > > > > Same thing basically qemu_host_page_mask is unsigned long and so > > the upper bits are sliently cleared. Again qemu_host_page_mask > > should probably be abi_ulong. > > > > The above two make elf binary with one of the segments above 4G load > > and run on 32bit guest only to fail well into execution and without > > any indication that it shouldn't have been allowed to run in the first > > place. > > I'd be amazed if these are the only two issues, and expect 64-bit guests on > 32-bit hosts to be generally unsafe. These are the two issues i've been bitten by while trying to solve x86_64's far jumps, if you are okay with code silently misbehaving fine by me. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru