Messages in this thread |  | | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.63 accesses below %esp (was: Re: ntfs OOPS (2.5.63)) | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:35:26 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:05:30 +0200, Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> wrote:
>On 17 March 2003 23:43, Horst von Brand wrote: >> Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> said: >> > On 15 March 2003 20:34, Horst von Brand wrote: >> > > Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> said: >> >> [...] >> >> > > > Why not? Disassemble from, say, EIP-16 and check whether you >> > > > have an instruction starting exactly at EIP. If no, repeat from >> > > > EIP-15, -14... You are guaranteed to succeed at EIP-0 ;) >> > > >> > > But your previous success (if any) doesn't mean anything, and >> > > might even screw up the decoding after EIP >> > >> > How come? If I started to decode at EIP-n and got a sequence of >> > instructions at EIP-n, EIP-n+k1, EIP-n+k2, EIP-n+k3..., EIP, >> > instructions prior to EIP can be wrong. Instruction at EIP >> > and all subsequent ones ought to be right. >> >> Iff you exactly hit EIP that way (sure, should check). But wrong >> previous instructions _will_ confuse people or start them on all kind >> of wild goose chases. Too much work for a dubious gain. > >You are right. But that is better than showing no prior instructions >at all. And most of the time (can I say 90% ?) prior instructions >will be ok.
You can also show the instruction sequences that make sense and let the human figure out the correct sequence when there are multiples.
john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |