linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:17:52 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakaynahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	stan_shebs@...tor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*_step

On 08/08/2012 02:57 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> +static int insn_changes_flags(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe)
>> +{
>> +	/* popf reads flags from stack */
>> +	if (auprobe->insn[0] == 0x9d)
>> +		return 1;
>
> Ah, somehow I didn't think about this before.
>
> ->insn[0] doesn't look right, we should skip the prefixes.

Why? I tried 'lock popf' and I got invalid instruction. The same for
'rep popf'.

> Oleg.
>

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/