* [Bug uprobes/5273] New: x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up?
@ 2007-11-05 21:59 jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-04-24 21:00 ` [Bug uprobes/5273] " jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-08-13 17:47 ` fche at redhat dot com
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com @ 2007-11-05 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
In uprobes_i386.c and uprobes_x86_64.c, we spend quite a bit of code on refusing
to probe certain types of instructions, such as undefined opcodes and other
instructions that are likely to yield SIGILL when single-stepped in user mode.
There's also some paranoia about how instruction prefixes and such might affect
our decisions about which instructions need to be treated specially when
single-stepping them out of line.
We could probably lighten up here. One disadvantage of the paranoia is that
tests that try to probe (say) EVERY instruction in a .o file will choke on
things like hlt.
For illegal instructions, if the SIGILL kills the task before the SIGTRAP from
the single-step is reported to us -- we need to test this -- then we should be
OK. Testing suggests that we know how to handle tasks that die of other causes
during probepoint processing.
And I think we've successfully identified instructions that need special
attention during SSOL. It's probably just a matter of testing each currently
banned instruction type to verify that it doesn't present an unforeseen problem.
--
Summary: x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up?
Product: systemtap
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: uprobes
AssignedTo: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5273
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug uprobes/5273] x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up?
2007-11-05 21:59 [Bug uprobes/5273] New: x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up? jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-04-24 21:00 ` jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-08-13 17:47 ` fche at redhat dot com
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com @ 2009-04-24 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com 2009-04-24 21:00 -------
uprobes/uprobes_i386.c has been brought back into sync with the (more tolerant)
uprobes2/uprobes_x86.c. A couple of changes were ad hoc to address specific
test failures. Commit af6b060 completes the resync.
We still haven't done any exhaustive testing of the whole instruction set.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5273
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug uprobes/5273] x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up?
2007-11-05 21:59 [Bug uprobes/5273] New: x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up? jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-04-24 21:00 ` [Bug uprobes/5273] " jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-08-13 17:47 ` fche at redhat dot com
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2009-08-13 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-08-13 17:47 -------
*** Bug 10324 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fche at redhat dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5273
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-08-13 17:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-11-05 21:59 [Bug uprobes/5273] New: x86 arch_validate_probed_insn(): lighten up? jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-04-24 21:00 ` [Bug uprobes/5273] " jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com
2009-08-13 17:47 ` fche at redhat dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).