On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 02:19:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Do we really still need the !insn.length? That is, it *should* be
> impossible to not fail insn_get_length() and still have a 0 length,
> seeing how x86 doesn't have 0 length instructions.
I was responding to the "doubly important" thing in the comment scarying
me about an infinite loop and thus left the length check in, in case
the insn decoder would have a bug and return success but still have
insn.length 0.
With the length check the endless loop won't happen but let's be
brave here ... :-)
So removed.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
