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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:06:33 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf, tools, script: Add support for printing assembler Em Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:55:21AM -0800, Andi Kleen escreveu: > > Do you know if there is any tool comparing the output of objdump -d to what is > > produced by a similar xed based tool? > > I'm not aware of such a tool, but could be written using the "xed" tool > in the xed distribution. However I would trust xed over objdump, It would go both ways, and I was not implying which one is "better", just checking differences in the output. > it is used widely in Intel tools with likely far more testing > than binutils > > > 4b8506 jz 0x4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> 74 c8 je 4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> > > 4b84d0 add $0x1, %r14 add $0x1,%r14 > > 4b84d4 cmp %r14d, %ebx cmp %r14d,%ebx > > 4b84d7 jle 0x4b8530 <perf_evsel__enable+0xd0> jle 4b8530 <perf_evsel__enable+0xd0> > > 4b8530 add $0x1, %r12 add $0x1,%r12 > > 4b8534 cmp %r12d, %r13d cmp %r12d,%r13d > > 4b8537 jnle 0x4b84c2 <perf_evsel__enable+0x62> 7f 89 jg 4b84c2 <perf_evsel__enable+0x62> > > 4b84c2 xor %r14d, %r14d xor %r14d,%r14d > > 4b84c5 test %ebx, %ebx test %ebx,%ebx > > 4b84c7 jnle 0x4b84d9 <perf_evsel__enable+0x79> 7f 10 jg 4b84d9 <perf_evsel__enable+0x79> > > 4b84d9 movq 0x90(%r15), %rax 49 8b 87 90 00 00 00 mov 0x90(%r15),%rax > > 4b84e0 mov %r12, %rdx mov %r12,%rdx > > 4b84e3 mov %r14, %rcx mov %r14,%rcx > > 4b84e6 mov $0x2400, %esi mov $0x2400,%esi > > 4b84eb imulq (%rax), %rdx 48 0f af 10 imul (%rax),%rdx > > 4b84ef imulq 0x8(%rax), %rcx 48 0f af 48 08 imul 0x8(%rax),%rcx > > 4b84f4 add %rdx, %rax add %rdx,%rax > > 4b84f7 xor %edx, %edx xor %edx,%edx > > 4b84f9 movl 0x18(%rcx,%rax,1), %edi 8b 7c 01 18 mov 0x18(%rcx,%rax,1),%edi > > 4b84fd xor %eax, %eax xor %eax,%eax > > 4b84ff callq 0x42d990 <ioctl@plt> callq 42d990 <ioctl@plt> > > 4b8504 test %eax, %eax test %eax,%eax > > 4b8506 jz 0x4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> 74 c8 je 4b84d0 <perf_evsel__enable+0x70> > > Yes all the differences are ok. It's just synonyms of the instructions. > > -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists