On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:53:45PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/08, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
...
> >> ->insn[0] doesn't look right, we should skip the prefixes.
insn_init()
insn_get_opcode()
if (OPCODE1() == 0x9d)
is always the right way of doing it.
...
> And in any case it wo
On 08/08/2012 04:53 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Why? I tried 'lock popf' and I got invalid instruction. The same for
'rep popf'.
int main(void)
{
asm volatile ("pushf; rep; popf");
return 0;
}
Just tested and it works. Hmm.
OK, probably
On 08/08, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> 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 thi
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 s
On 08/07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> The arch specific implementation behaves like user_enable_single_step()
> except that it does not disable single stepping if it was already
> enabled. This allows the debugger to single step over an uprobe.
> The state of block stepping is not restored
The arch specific implementation behaves like user_enable_single_step()
except that it does not disable single stepping if it was already
enabled. This allows the debugger to single step over an uprobe.
The state of block stepping is not restored. It makes only sense
together with TF and if that wa
6 matches
Mail list logo
