| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fXL0hXFT+t6gHp2RFd4dKnebSkd+rewudpmdentKGPURw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:13:35 -0800
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Aditya Gupta <adityag@...ux.ibm.com>, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@...gle.com>,
Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>, Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>, Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Chaitanya S Prakash <chaitanyas.prakash@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/18] perf capstone: Support for dlopen-ing libcapstone.so
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:58 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:20:15PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:22 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 09:42:56AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > If perf wasn't built against libcapstone, no HAVE_LIBCAPSTONE_SUPPORT,
> > > > support dlopen-ing libcapstone.so and then calling the necessary
> > > > functions by looking them up using dlsym. Reverse engineer the types
> > > > in the API using pahole, adding only what's used in the perf code or
> > > > necessary for the sake of struct size and alignment.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/perf/util/capstone.c | 287 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 248 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/capstone.c b/tools/perf/util/capstone.c
> > > > index c9845e4d8781..8d65c7a55a8b 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/capstone.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/capstone.c
> > > > @@ -11,19 +11,249 @@
> > > > #include "print_insn.h"
> > > > #include "symbol.h"
> > > > #include "thread.h"
> > > > +#include <dlfcn.h>
> > > > #include <fcntl.h>
> > > > +#include <inttypes.h>
> > >
> > > These two can go under #else (!HAVE_LIBCAPSTONE_SUPPORT).
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> > > > #include <string.h>
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef HAVE_LIBCAPSTONE_SUPPORT
> > > > #include <capstone/capstone.h>
> > > > +#else
> > > > +typedef size_t csh;
> > > > +enum cs_arch {
> > > > + CS_ARCH_ARM = 0,
> > > > + CS_ARCH_ARM64 = 1,
> > > > + CS_ARCH_X86 = 3,
> > > > + CS_ARCH_SYSZ = 6,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum cs_mode {
> > > > + CS_MODE_ARM = 0,
> > > > + CS_MODE_32 = 1 << 2,
> > > > + CS_MODE_64 = 1 << 3,
> > > > + CS_MODE_V8 = 1 << 6,
> > > > + CS_MODE_BIG_ENDIAN = 1 << 31,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum cs_opt_type {
> > > > + CS_OPT_SYNTAX = 1,
> > > > + CS_OPT_DETAIL = 2,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum cs_opt_value {
> > > > + CS_OPT_SYNTAX_ATT = 2,
> > > > + CS_OPT_ON = 3,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum cs_err {
> > > > + CS_ERR_OK = 0,
> > > > + CS_ERR_HANDLE = 3,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum x86_op_type {
> > > > + X86_OP_IMM = 2,
> > > > + X86_OP_MEM = 3,
> > > > +};
> > > > +enum x86_reg {
> > > > + X86_REG_RIP = 41,
> > > > +};
> > > > +typedef int32_t x86_avx_bcast;
> > > > +struct x86_op_mem {
> > > > + enum x86_reg segment;
> > > > + enum x86_reg base;
> > > > + enum x86_reg index;
> > > > + int scale;
> > > > + int64_t disp;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct cs_x86_op {
> > > > + enum x86_op_type type;
> > > > + union {
> > > > + enum x86_reg reg;
> > > > + int64_t imm;
> > > > + struct x86_op_mem mem;
> > > > + };
> > > > + uint8_t size;
> > > > + uint8_t access;
> > > > + x86_avx_bcast avx_bcast;
> > > > + bool avx_zero_opmask;
> > > > +};
> > > > +struct cs_x86_encoding {
> > > > + uint8_t modrm_offset;
> > > > + uint8_t disp_offset;
> > > > + uint8_t disp_size;
> > > > + uint8_t imm_offset;
> > > > + uint8_t imm_size;
> > > > +};
> > > > +typedef int32_t x86_xop_cc;
> > > > +typedef int32_t x86_sse_cc;
> > > > +typedef int32_t x86_avx_cc;
> > > > +typedef int32_t x86_avx_rm;
> > > > +struct cs_x86 {
> > > > + uint8_t prefix[4];
> > > > + uint8_t opcode[4];
> > > > + uint8_t rex;
> > > > + uint8_t addr_size;
> > > > + uint8_t modrm;
> > > > + uint8_t sib;
> > > > + int64_t disp;
> > > > + enum x86_reg sib_index;
> > > > + int8_t sib_scale;
> > > > + enum x86_reg sib_base;
> > > > + x86_xop_cc xop_cc;
> > > > + x86_sse_cc sse_cc;
> > > > + x86_avx_cc avx_cc;
> > > > + bool avx_sae;
> > > > + x86_avx_rm avx_rm;
> > > > + union {
> > > > + uint64_t eflags;
> > > > + uint64_t fpu_flags;
> > > > + };
> > > > + uint8_t op_count;
> > > > + struct cs_x86_op operands[8];
> > > > + struct cs_x86_encoding encoding;
> > > > +};
> > > > +struct cs_detail {
> > > > + uint16_t regs_read[12];
> > > > + uint8_t regs_read_count;
> > > > + uint16_t regs_write[20];
> > > > + uint8_t regs_write_count;
> > > > + uint8_t groups[8];
> > > > + uint8_t groups_count;
> > > > +
> > > > + union {
> > > > + struct cs_x86 x86;
> > > > + };
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > As discussed, let's remove the detail part.
> >
> > I kind of feel there should be a #warning in that case. I'd rather
> > leave it as is and not have a build warning.
>
> What kind of build warning are you talking about?
If we don't feature detect capstone then we'll switch to dlopen. If we
remove detail as a consequence of that then it feels like it should
have a warning. The warning could either be in Makefile.config or a
#warning in the code.
Thanks,
Ian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists