Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 07/18] x86emul: support {,V}{LD,ST}MXCSR

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.02.17 at 16:12, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 20.02.17 at 15:52, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Having said that, shouldn't the pfx check be included even in the
>> VEX-encoded case?  (i.e. the lables move up once again).
> 
> It's the other way around actually: The checks are redundant in
> the non-VEX case, as the prefix is included in the opcode (see the
> handling of 0xae in x86_decode_twobyte()).

Actually no, this sits on a path handling un-prefixed as well as 66-
prefixed instructions. This could be disentangled eventually. The
VEX part is fine as is, as there is no handling of an (VEX-encoded)
prefixes there.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel