[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Ivo Raisr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #35 from Ivo Raisr --- For Solaris and OS X, tests connected under SVN r16422. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #34 from Ivo Raisr --- Follow up SVN commit r16421 which splits the tests into three. Another commit will follow, enabling cet_nops_fs on Solaris and cet_nops_gs on OS X. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #33 from Tanya --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #32) > (In reply to Tanya from comment #23) > > Attached an updated 32-bit version of the patch. 32-bit part of the previous > > patch sets "temp_sorb"

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #32 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #23) > Attached an updated 32-bit version of the patch. 32-bit part of the previous > patch sets "temp_sorb" variable incorrectly. > As far as I understand, the

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #31 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #30) > It should be a plain text file, it opens correctly for me. It does nor open > for you? I think the spaces in the file name have confused my emacs :-/ I

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #30 from Tanya --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #27) > (In reply to Tanya from comment #26) > > Created attachment 105777 [details] > > test without FS or GS prefixes > > Tanya, is that a tar file?

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #29 from Tanya --- Created attachment 105779 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=105779=edit test with FS prefixes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #27 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #26) > Created attachment 105777 [details] > test without FS or GS prefixes Tanya, is that a tar file? Can you just attach a plain text file? -- You are

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #27 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #26) > Created attachment 105777 [details] > test without FS or GS prefixes Tanya, is that a tar file? Can you just attach a plain text file? --- Comment #28

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Tanya changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #105776|0 |1 is obsolete|

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #25 from Tanya --- Created attachment 105776 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=105776=edit test without FS or GS prefixes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #24 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #18) > It would help immensely if you could divide the file (or better split it) in > three sections: > - with gs prefix > - with fs prefix > - with no prefix

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #23 from Tanya --- (In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #19) > (In reply to Tanya from comment #17) > > (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #9) > > > Committed, r3383, r16415. Thanks for the patches. > > >

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #22 from Tanya --- Created attachment 105753 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=105753=edit Proposed patch for 32-bit architecture -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #20) > (In reply to Tanya from comment #17) > > Would it be possible to patch the 32-bit instruction parser as well? > > I saw that part in your patch, but

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #20 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #17) > Would it be possible to patch the 32-bit instruction parser as well? I saw that part in your patch, but didn't land it, because the 32-bit insn parser only

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #19 from Ivo Raisr --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #17) > (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #9) > > Committed, r3383, r16415. Thanks for the patches. > > Julian, > Would it be possible to patch the 32-bit

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #18 from Ivo Raisr --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16) > (In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #14) > > And this is a minimalistic reproducer with the latest Valgrind sources: > > > > -- > >

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #17 from Tanya --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #9) > Committed, r3383, r16415. Thanks for the patches. Julian, Would it be possible to patch the 32-bit instruction parser as well? -- You are

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #14) > And this is a minimalistic reproducer with the latest Valgrind sources: > > -- > #include > > int main () > { > __asm__

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #15 from Ivo Raisr --- So the real "culprit" is that on: amd64/Linux: guest_amd64_assume_fs_is_const = True guest_amd64_assume_gs_is_const = True amd64/Darwin: guest_amd64_assume_fs_is_const = False

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #14 from Ivo Raisr --- And this is a minimalistic reproducer with the latest Valgrind sources: -- #include int main () { __asm__ __volatile__ (".byte 0x65, 0x0f, 0x19, 0xff" :::"cc","memory");

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #13 from Ivo Raisr --- I've updated GIT repo at sourceware.org. So the test program under Valgrind crashes at cet_nop.c:42 which is this line: 42 __asm__ __volatile__ (".byte 0xf3, 0x66, 0x64, 0x0f, 0x19, 0xff"

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #12 from Julian Seward --- Ivo, I am a bit surprised by this. The new insn decoder bits are not dependent on the host's hw caps -- this is handled by dis_ESC_0F, which is available at any hwcaps level (for example, it

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #11 from Tanya --- (In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #10) Ivo, I cannot reproduce the issue on the latest Git sources with the 379525 patch (amd64 linux, gcc 6.2.0). I cannot get the latest SVN sources

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #10 from Ivo Raisr --- I get the following error output from Valgrind run: $ ./vg-in-place --tool=none none/tests/amd64/cet_nops ==13161== Nulgrind, the minimal Valgrind tool ==13161== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #8 from Tanya --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #5) > (In reply to Tanya from comment #4) > > Proposed a patch that implements the missing opcodes and allows them to have > > any prefixes or operands.

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #7 from Tanya --- Created attachment 105677 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=105677=edit Files for Valgrind test case attempt to make Valgrind test case -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #6 from Tanya --- Created attachment 105676 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=105676=edit C test with different opcodes C application with NOPs with various opcode, prefix and ModRM combinations --

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #5 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Tanya from comment #4) > Proposed a patch that implements the missing opcodes and allows them to have > any prefixes or operands. Tanya, thanks for the patch. Given that we are very

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Tatyana changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #2) > HJ, what's the use case here? Where are these coming from? > Not from gcc-7.x AFAICT. So .. where? NOP opcodes are turned into real instructions on

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- HJ, what's the use case here? Where are these coming from? Not from gcc-7.x AFAICT. So .. where? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Ivo Raisr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iv...@ivosh.net --- Comment #1

[valgrind] [Bug 379525] Support more x86 nop opcodes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379525 Pavel Chupin changed: What|Removed |Added CC|