On September 12, 2019 8:00:39 AM GMT+01:00, Adrian Hunter
wrote:
>On 29/08/19 2:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:40:56PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> Can you expand on "and ensure the poke_handler preserves the
>existing
>>> control flow"? Whatever the INT3-handler
On 29/08/19 2:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:40:56PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> Can you expand on "and ensure the poke_handler preserves the existing
>> control flow"? Whatever the INT3-handler does will be traced normally so
>> long as it does not itself execute
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:40:56PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Can you expand on "and ensure the poke_handler preserves the existing
> control flow"? Whatever the INT3-handler does will be traced normally so
> long as it does not itself execute self-modified code.
My thinking was that the code
On 29/08/19 11:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:23:52AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 9/01/19 12:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:47:42PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>
A general solution is more complicated, however, due to the racy
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:23:52AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 9/01/19 12:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:47:42PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >
> >> A general solution is more complicated, however, due to the racy nature of
> >> cross-modifying code. There would
On 9/01/19 12:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:47:42PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> A general solution is more complicated, however, due to the racy nature of
>> cross-modifying code. There would need to be TSC recording of the time
>> before the modifications start and
6 matches
Mail list logo
