On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Srikar Dronamraju
<srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +/*
> + * opcodes we'll probably never support:
> + * 6c-6d, e4-e5, ec-ed - in
> + * 6e-6f, e6-e7, ee-ef - out
> + * cc, cd - int3, int
I imagine desire to set a breakpoint on int 0x80 will be rather typical.
(Same for sysenter).
> + * cf - iret
Iret does work. Test program for 32-bit x86:
/* gcc -nostartfiles -nostdlib -o iret iret.S */
_start: .globl _start
pushf
push %cs
push $_e
iret /* will this jump to _e? Yes! */
hlt /* segv if reached */
_e: movl $42, %ebx
movl $1, %eax
int $0x80
I guess supporting probes in weird stuff like ancient DOS emulators
(they actually use iret) is not important.
OTOH iret doesn't seem to be too hard: if it fails (bad cs/eflags
on stack), then the location of iret instruction per se is not
terribly important.
If it works, then you need to be careful to not mess up eip,
same as you already do with ordinary [l]ret, nothing more.
Come to think of it, why do you bother checking for
invalid instructions? What can happen if you would just copy
and run all instructions? You already are prepared to handle
exceptions, right?
--
vda
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>