On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:24:53AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > What's the objdump say here?
The expected "bad": 0: c5 ec 95 (bad) 3: b2 02 mov $0x2,%dl 5: bd 4b c8 a8 36 mov $0x36a8c84b,%ebp a: b2 c5 mov $0xc5,%dl c: c0 df 13 rcr $0x13,%bh > Yes, in this case, we would better to handle it as an undecodable input > instead of access violation in insn_sanity. Ok, good. I've got the hunk below now and it does the right thing. The whole patch has become huuge now, lemme split it finally. :) Thx. --- diff --git a/arch/x86/tools/insn_sanity.c b/arch/x86/tools/insn_sanity.c index 185ceba9d289..f20765beec9c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/tools/insn_sanity.c +++ b/arch/x86/tools/insn_sanity.c @@ -222,8 +224,8 @@ static void parse_args(int argc, char **argv) int main(int argc, char **argv) { + int insns = 0, ret; struct insn insn; - int insns = 0; int errors = 0; unsigned long i; unsigned char insn_buff[MAX_INSN_SIZE * 2]; @@ -241,15 +243,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) continue; /* Decode an instruction */ - insn_init(&insn, insn_buff, sizeof(insn_buff), x86_64); - insn_get_length(&insn); + ret = insn_decode(&insn, insn_buff, sizeof(insn_buff), + x86_64 ? INSN_MODE_64 : INSN_MODE_32); if (insn.next_byte <= insn.kaddr || insn.kaddr + MAX_INSN_SIZE < insn.next_byte) { /* Access out-of-range memory */ dump_stream(stderr, "Error: Found an access violation", i, insn_buff, &insn); errors++; - } else if (verbose && !insn_complete(&insn)) + } else if (verbose && ret < 0) dump_stream(stdout, "Info: Found an undecodable input", i, insn_buff, &insn); else if (verbose >= 2) dump_insn(stdout, &insn); -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette