similar to: [Bug 738] New: reading beyond buffer limits in nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c::tcp_options()

--7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Netfilter Core Team Security Advisory =20 CVE: CAN-2003-0467 Subject: Netfilter / NAT Remote DoS Released: 01 Aug 2003 Effects: Under limited circumstances, a remote user may be able to crash

Hi, I'm looking at scalar and packed instructions in X86. The instruction VCOMISS is scalar. May I remove SSEPackedSingle/SSEPackedDouble domain from it? defm VUCOMISS : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR32, X86cmp, f32, f32mem, loadf32, "ucomiss", SSEPackedSingle>, TB, VEX, VEX_LIG; defm VUCOMISD : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR64, X86cmp, f64,

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087 Bug ID: 1087 Summary: Window Tracking not disabled Product: conntrack-tools Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: conntrack-daemon Assignee: netfilter-buglog

In our generated asm code we've got a constraint such that two registers in a ternary op have to be in different "banks", best illustrated with an example: add r1,r2,r1 # r1 <- r2 + r1 The problem here is that the first operand (the receiver of the value) is in the same "bank" as the 3rd operand (r1 again). This will cause an extra cycle to be burned. As it turns

Hi all, I think I found a bug in LLVM 3.0: When compiling for a target without SSE2 support, there were some 128-bit PXOR instructions in the generated code. I traced it down to the following definition in X86InstrSSE.td: def FsFLD0SS : I<0xEF, MRMInitReg, (outs FR32:$dst), (ins), "", [(set FR32:$dst, fp32imm0)]>,

I'm looking at the instruction formats and I can't grok the comments. For example: // SSSE3 Instruction Templates: // // SS38I - SSSE3 instructions with T8 prefix. // SS3AI - SSSE3 instructions with TA prefix. // Where are these prefix names coming from? I can't find any mention of them in the Intel literature. Also, there's this curious table: // Prefix byte classes

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|ip_conntrack |nf_conntrack ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2006-02-14 09:05 MET ------- ipv6 conntrack is

Hi, I noticed a bunch of psuedo instructions used for creation of constants without generating loads. e.g. pxor xmm0, xmm0 Here is an example of what i am referring to snipped from X86InstrSSE.td: def FsFLD0SS : I<0xEF, MRMInitReg, (outs FR32:$dst), (ins), "", [(set FR32:$dst, fp32imm0)]>, Requires<[HasSSE1]>, TB, OpSize; My question is

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I found a bug in LLVM 3.0: When compiling for a target without > SSE2 support, there were some 128-bit PXOR instructions in the generated > code. > > I traced it down to the following definition in X86InstrSSE.td: > >   def FsFLD0SS : I<0xEF, MRMInitReg,

On Mar 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > I'm looking at the instruction formats and I can't grok the > comments. For > example: > > // SSSE3 Instruction Templates: > // > // SS38I - SSSE3 instructions with T8 prefix. > // SS3AI - SSSE3 instructions with TA prefix. > // > > Where are these prefix names coming from? I can't find any

I am new to the LLVM backends, I am wondering how instruction selection is done in LLVM backends, I looked at the .td files in Target/X86, they all seem to be small and do not deal with common X86 instructions, i.e. mov, push, pop, etc. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Copy Ii32 in X86InstrFormats.td rename to Ii64 and change Imm32 to Imm64. Instantiate your instruction inheriting from Ii64. Pass RawFrm to the form parameter. Initial documentation for the encoding system is attached. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Gus Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single

I am attempting to create an instruction which takes a single 64-bit immediate. This doesn't seem like a thing that would exist already (because who needs an instruction which just takes an immediate?) How might I implement this easily? Perhaps I could use a format which encodes a register, which is then unused? Thanks for the help. Gus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

new warnings, I think lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp: In member function ‘llvm::SDValue<unnamed>::DAGCombiner::FindBetterChain(llvm::SDNode*, llvm::SDValue)’: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:6006: warning: ‘SrcValueOffset’ may be used uninitialized in this function lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp:6006: note: ‘SrcValueOffset’ was declared here

[This e-mail has been automatically generated.] You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla bug tracking system (http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/) that require attention. All of these bugs are in the NEW or REOPENED state, and have not been touched in 7 days or more. You need to take a look at them, and decide on an initial action. Generally, this means one of three things: (1) You

Hi, I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, to save some time. But when I look into the X86InstrInfo.td, I have a very strong feeling that it is one of the most complex instruction set descriptions compared to other targets. I can imagine that this is due to the complexity of X86's

[This e-mail has been automatically generated.] You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla bug tracking system (http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/) that require attention. All of these bugs are in the NEW or REOPENED state, and have not been touched in 7 days or more. You need to take a look at them, and decide on an initial action. Generally, this means one of three things: (1) You

[This e-mail has been automatically generated.] You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla bug tracking system (http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/) that require attention. All of these bugs are in the NEW or REOPENED state, and have not been touched in 7 days or more. You need to take a look at them, and decide on an initial action. Generally, this means one of three things: (1) You

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> All, >> >> TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. >

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm trying to implement a new backend for an embedded CISC processor. > Therefore I thought that it makes sense to take X86 target as a basis, > to save some time. Ok. Note that the X86 backend is one of the most complex though, because it supports several subtargets and ABIs, which makes it more complex than some other targets. >