Re: [PATCH v10 02/13] x86/insn-eval: Compute linear address in several utility functions

[Ricardo Neri]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * -EDOM means that we must ignore the address_offset. In such a case,
> > +	 * in 64-bit mode the effective address relative to the RIP of the
> > +	 * following instruction.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (*regoff == -EDOM) {
> > +		if (user_64bit_mode(regs))
> > +			tmp = (long)regs->ip + insn->length;
> > +		else
> > +			tmp = 0;
> > +	} else if (*regoff < 0) {
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	} else {
> > +		tmp = (long)regs_get_register(regs, *regoff);
> > +	}
> 
> > +	else
> > +		indx = (long)regs_get_register(regs, indx_offset);
> 
> This and subsequent patches include a disgustly insane amount of type casts - why?
> 
> For example here 'tmp' is 'long', while regs_get_register() returns
> 'unsigned long', but no type cast is necessary for that.
> 
> > +			ret = get_eff_addr_modrm(insn, regs, &addr_offset,
> > +						 &eff_addr);

One of the goals of this series is to have the ability to compute 16-bit, 32-bit
and 64-bit addresses. I put lost of casts, between signed and unsigned types,
between 64-bit and 32-bit and 16-bit casts. After seeing your comment I have gone
through the code and I have removed most of the casts. Instead I will use masks.
I will also inspect the resulting assembly code to make sure the arithmetic is
performed in the address size pertinent to each case.

> 
> Also, please don't break lines slightly longer than 80 cols just to pacify 
> checkpatch (and this holds for other patches as well) - the cure is worse than the 
> illness!

I will look into these two cases and reorganize the code.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo