On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > Basically, the idea was:
> >
> > .skip len(repl1) - len(orig), 0x90
> > .skip len(repl2) - len(repl1), 0x90
> >
> > BUT!, for some reason I changed it to what's there now and I can't
> > remember why anymore.
>
> I think it would not work in the case where repl1 is smaller or equal than
> orig_insn (i.e. no padding in the first .skip) but orig_insn is strictly
> smaller than repl2 (since we're never comparing repl2 with insn in this
> new-old code).
orig_insn=4
repl1=3
repl2=5
.skip 0, 0x90
.skip 2, 0x90
I think that still works, only the padding is larger than it needs to
be. And it is so many bytes larger as len(abs(repl1 - orig_insn)) is.
In the example above, we'll get two bytes padding while only 1 suffices.
> Anything wrong with the two different approaches I've suggested in my
> original mail?
Right now, I want to have a minimal fix for obvious reasons. We can
always improve stuff later when there's more time.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
