lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 3.2 1/9] uprobes: Install and remove breakpoints.
(2012/01/27 3:28), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Masami Hiramatsu
> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote:
>> (2012/01/26 0:32), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Denys Vlasenko
>>> <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Convert from rip-relative addressing to indirect addressing
>>>>> + * via a scratch register. Change the r/m field from 0x5 (%rip)
>>>>> + * to 0x0 (%rax) or 0x1 (%rcx), and squeeze out the offset field.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + reg = MODRM_REG(insn);
>>>>> + if (reg == 0) {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * The register operand (if any) is either the A register
>>>>> + * (%rax, %eax, etc.) or (if the 0x4 bit is set in the
>>>>> + * REX prefix) %r8. In any case, we know the C register
>>>>> + * is NOT the register operand, so we use %rcx (register
>>>>> + * #1) for the scratch register.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + uprobe->arch_info.fixups = UPROBES_FIX_RIP_CX;
>>>>> + /* Change modrm from 00 000 101 to 00 000 001. */
>>>>> + *cursor = 0x1;
>>>
>>> Hmm. I think we have a bug here.
>>>
>>> What if this instruction has REX.B = 1? Granted, REX.B = 1 has no effect on
>>> rip-relative addressing and therefore normally won't be generated by gcc/as,
>>> but still. If you replace md and r/m fields as above, you are trying to convert
>>> 0x12345678(%rip) reference to (%rcx), but if REX.B = 1, then you in fact
>>> converted it to (%r9)!
>>
>> Right, thanks for finding :)
>> And %rax register reference encoding has same problem, doesn't it?
>
> Yes.
>
> The solution is trivial: "if (REX pfx exists) REX.B = 0;"
>
> Also, I don't remember whether (%rip) addressing is
> affected by 0x67 (address size) prefix. If it is, then
> nothing needs to be done.

In Intel SDM vol.2, "2.2.1.6 RIP-Relative Addressing" explains
that as below;

---
RIP-relative addressing is enabled by 64-bit mode, not by a 64-bit address-size.
The use of the address-size prefix does not disable RIP-relative addressing. The
effect of the address-size prefix is to truncate and zero-extend the computed
effective address to 32 bits.
---

This means 0x67 pfx can be used with RIP-relative, and
effective address(EA) will be 32bit, as same as others.
So, I think it should work :)


Thank you!

--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-30 10:55    [W:0.067 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site