linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] uprobes/x86: Emulate rip-relative call's

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:	Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:22:38 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Lebon <jlebon@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] uprobes/x86: Emulate rip-relative
 call's

(2014/04/11 21:23), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Masami Hiramatsu
> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
>> At least, if we can trust Intel SDM, it says that depends
>> on the operand-size (insn->opnd_bytes) and stack segment
>> descriptor. Please check the SDM vol.1 6.2.2 Stack Alignment
>> and vol.2a, 3.2 Instructions (A-M), CALL--Call Procedure.
>> But we'd better check it on x86-32.
> 
> I am past trusting CPU manuals on this one:
> 
> By now I verified on the real hardware that AMD and Intel CPUs
> handle this insn differently in 64-bit mode: Intel ignores 0x66 prefix.
> AMD treats this insn the same as in 32-bit mode: as 16-bit insn.
> 
> (Should I submit a patch adding comment about it
> in x86-opcode-map.txt?)

Yeah, feel free to do so :)

> So there is no universally "correct" way to emulate it.
> 
> We, theoretically, can decode it differently *depending
> on actual CPU(s) on the system*... do we really want
> to go *that* far? I guess not.

No I guess not too. If we start such thing, we need to cover
other x86 variants too... And actually jump/callw is not a
normal instructions.

BTW, I can see that difference on AMD64 architecture programmers
manual vol.3 appendix A. It seems that the difference is by
design...

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/