Re: [PATCH 3/5] uprobes: Fix UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP checks inhandle_swbp()

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sat Sep 15 2012 - 10:59:24 EST

On 09/15, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:15:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Note: probably we should rename "skip" to "emulate" and I think
> > that "clear UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP" should be moved to arch_can_skip.
> Agree. emulate is more accurate in this situation since, especially on
> powerpc, we do emulate most instructions.

Yes. And even on x86, perhaps we should emulate at least pushf to
not expose TF set by uprobes.

Off-topic question... I am trying to understand if arch_uprobe_skip_sstep()
is correct on x86.

It doesn't update regs->ip. Probably this is fine, at least this is
fine if it finds "nop" eventually. But I can't undestand what
"0x66* { 0x90 | 0x0f 0x1f | 0x0f 0x19 | 0x87 0xc0 }" means.
OK, 0x66 and 0x90 are clear. But, say, 0x0f 0x1f ?

I compiled this program

int main(void)
asm volatile (".word 0x1f0f");
return 0;

and objdump reports:

000000000040047c <main>:
40047c: 0f 1f 31 nopl (%rcx)
40047f: c0 c3 90 rol $0x90,%bl

Could you explain?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at