qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] target/mips/mxu: Rewrite D16MIN / D16MAX opcodes


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/mips/mxu: Rewrite D16MIN / D16MAX opcodes
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:03:40 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0

On 3/16/21 11:51 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 22:39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote:
>>
>> Coverity reported (CID 1450831) an array overrun in
>> gen_mxu_D16MAX_D16MIN():
>>
>>   1103     } else if (unlikely((XRb == 0) || (XRa == 0))) {
>>   ....
>>   1112         if (opc == OPC_MXU_D16MAX) {
>>   1113             tcg_gen_smax_i32(mxu_gpr[XRa - 1], t0, t1);
>>   1114         } else {
>>   1115             tcg_gen_smin_i32(mxu_gpr[XRa - 1], t0, t1);
>>   1116         }
>>
>>>>> Overrunning array "mxu_gpr" of 15 8-byte elements at element
>>     index 4294967295 (byte offset 34359738367) using index "XRa - 1U"
>>     (which evaluates to 4294967295).
>>
>> Because we check if 'XRa == 0' then access 'XRa - 1' in array.
>>
>> I figured it could be easier to rewrite this function to something
>> simpler rather than trying to understand it.
> 
> This seems to drop half of the optimised cases the old
> code had. Wouldn't it be simpler just to fix the bugs
> in the conditions?
> 
> That is:
> 
>>      if (unlikely(pad != 0)) {
>>          /* opcode padding incorrect -> do nothing */
>> -    } else if (unlikely(XRc == 0)) {
>> -        /* destination is zero register -> do nothing */
> 
> This should be "XRa == 0"
> 
>> -    } else if (unlikely((XRb == 0) && (XRa == 0))) {
>> -        /* both operands zero registers -> just set destination to zero */
> 
> This should be "XRb == 0 && XRc == 0"
> 
>> -        tcg_gen_movi_i32(mxu_gpr[XRc - 1], 0);
> 
> This should set mxu_gpr[XRa - 1]
> 
>> -    } else if (unlikely((XRb == 0) || (XRa == 0))) {
> 
> This should be "XRb == 0 || XRc == 0"
> 
> And everything else in the function looks OK to me.

If you have the changes clear, do you mind sending a patch?

Thanks,

Phil.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]