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
5 matches
Mail list logo
