Message-ID: <1493333398.74182.10.camel@ranerica-desktop>
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 03/21] x86/mpx: Do not use R/EBP as base in the SIB
 byte with Mod = 0
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@gmail.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@intel.com>,
        Nathan Howard <liverlint@gmail.com>,
        Adan Hawthorn <adanhawthorn@gmail.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:49:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170426080542.pannewbvzeqn5kj6@pd.tnic>
References: <20170308003254.27833-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170308003254.27833-4-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170411220816.2u3o72qnwcwq7jzc@pd.tnic>
         <1493172260.36058.26.camel@ranerica-desktop>
         <20170426080542.pannewbvzeqn5kj6@pd.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1530
Lines: 40

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:04:20PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > For the specific case of ModRM.mod being 0, I feel I need to clarify
> > that REX.B is not decoded and if SIB.base is %r13 the base is also 0.
> 
> Well, that all doesn't matter. The rule is this:
> 
> ModRM.mod == 00b and ModRM.r/m == 101b -> effective address: disp32
> 
> See Table 2-2. "32-Bit Addressing Forms with the ModR/M Byte" in the SDM.

You are right. This summarizes the rule. Then I will shorten the
comment.
> 
> So the base register is not used. How that base register is specified
> then doesn't matter (undecoded REX bits or not).
> 
> > This comment adds clarity because REX.X is decoded when determining
> > SIB.index.
> 
> Well, that's a different thing. The REX bits participating in the SIB
> fields don't matter about this particular case. We only want to say that
> we're returning a disp32 without a base register and the comment should
> keep it simple without extraneous information.
> 
> I know, you want to mention what Table 2-5. "Special Cases of REX
> Encodings" says but we should avoid unnecessary content in the comment.
> People who want details can stare at the manuals - the comment should
> only document what that particular case is.
> 
> Btw, you could write it even better:
> 
> 	if (!X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) && X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value) == 5)
> 
> and then it is basically a 1:1 copy of the rule from Table 2-2.

It is!

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo