search for: 0xeb

hi, i think the current X86 disassembler is quite broken and fails badly on handling REX for x86_64 code. below are some examples: $ echo "0x0f,0xeb,0xc3"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble -triple=x86_64 .text por %mm3, %mm0 $ echo "0x40,0x0f,0xeb,0xc3"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble -triple=x86_64 .text por %mm3, %mm0 $ echo "0x41,0x0f,0xeb,0xc3"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-m...

...23, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> i think the current X86 disassembler is quite broken and fails badly on >> handling REX for x86_64 code. >> >> below are some examples: >> >> $ echo "0x0f,0xeb,0xc3"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble >> -triple=x86_64 >> .text >> por %mm3, %mm0 >> >> $ echo "0x40,0x0f,0xeb,0xc3"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble >> -triple=x86_64 >> .text >> por %mm3, %m...

...================== I have an Acer Travelmate and had the known ?Unregistered Exception Handler? error at boot time. Short Explanation: The laptop starts up bios and when the bios wants to boot from any media (not even your harddisk) the exception is thrown. Reason: The Diskcryptor MBR starts with 0xeb(jmp). The original M$ mbr starts with 0x33(xor ax,ax). Some bioses(like mine) try to detect if a drive has a MBR or if it is a removable drive without MBR. Very simple here: Sector0,Position0==0x33 => MBR => normal partitioned harddisk. Sector0,Position0==0xeb => Boot Sector assumed =>...

...++ "this" pointer, aka hidden first argument. I would like to confirm, though. Thanks, Joel --- XUL`PresShell::ProcessReflowCommands(int)+0x32f XUL`PresShell::FlushPendingNotifications(mozFlushType) +0x19e XUL`PresShell::DidDoReflow(int)+0xeb XUL`PresShell::ResizeReflow(int, int)+0x350 XUL`nsViewManager::SetWindowDimensions(int, int)+0xe3 --- fastest mac firefox! http://wagerlabs.com

On 22 June 2016 at 16:36, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Peter suggested just writing out '.byte 0xeb, 0x09' and that allowed the > jump instruction to bypass the relaxation, so that fixes my immediate > problem. The question still stands though whether it should be possible to > do through the instruction builder interface. > I don't think so. When the relax-all flag is on MC...

...0xa8/0x360 [<00000000ab678644>] nvkm_vram_map+0x48/0x50 [<00000000d8176378>] nvkm_uvmm_mthd+0x658/0x770 [<00000000463fca5a>] nvkm_ioctl+0xdf/0x177 [<000000000afc4996>] nvif_object_mthd+0xd4/0x100 [<000000002f7a7385>] nvif_vmm_map+0xeb/0x100 [<00000000ef2537ed>] nouveau_mem_map+0x79/0xd0 [<0000000014ddc0cf>] nouveau_vma_new+0x19d/0x1c0 [<00000000f99888a1>] nouveau_gem_object_open+0xd4/0x140 [<000000009cd25861>] drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe3/0x160 [<0000000019178...

...de, 0xdf, 0xe1 }, { 0xde, 0xdf, 0xe0, 0xe2 }, { 0xdf, 0xe0, 0xe1, 0xe3 }, { 0xe0, 0xe1, 0xe2, 0xe4 }, { 0xe1, 0xe2, 0xe3, 0xe5 }, { 0xe2, 0xe3, 0xe4, 0xe6 }, { 0xe3, 0xe4, 0xe5, 0xe7 }, { 0xe4, 0xe5, 0xe6, 0xe8 }, { 0xe5, 0xe6, 0xe7, 0xe9 }, { 0xe6, 0xe7, 0xe8, 0xea }, { 0xe7, 0xe8, 0xe9, 0xeb }, { 0xe8, 0xe9, 0xea, 0xec }, { 0xe9, 0xea, 0xeb, 0xed }, { 0xea, 0xeb, 0xec, 0xee }, { 0xeb, 0xec, 0xed, 0xef }, { 0xec, 0xed, 0xee, 0xf0 }, { 0xed, 0xee, 0xef, 0xf1 }, { 0xee, 0xef, 0xf0, 0xf2 }, { 0xef, 0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf3 }, { 0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf4 }, { 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf5 }, { 0xf...

Hi, Currently X86 assembler seems to always compile "jmp _label" as a SHORT jump with "EB" opcode: $ echo "jmp _label"|llvm-mc -assemble -triple=i386 -show-encoding .text jmp _label # encoding: [0xeb,A] My question is: can X86 assembler supports NEAR jump with opcode "E9"? I try with "near" keyword, but it is not accepted: $ echo "jmp near _label"|llvm-mc -assemble -triple=i386 -show-encoding .text <stdin>:1:10: error: unexpected token in argument list...

...; wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:06 PM Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 22 June 2016 at 16:36, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Peter suggested just writing out '.byte 0xeb, 0x09' and that allowed the >> > jump instruction to bypass the relaxation, so that fixes my immediate >> > problem. The question still stands though whether it should be possible >> > to >> > do through the instruction builder interface. >> > >&g...

...0x5d, 0x00, 0x52, 0x00, 0x5f, 0x00, 0x44, 0x00, 0x2c, 0x00, 0x1c, 0x00, 0xe6, 0xff, 0xe2, 0xff, 0xef, 0xff, 0xe9, 0xff, 0xed, 0xff, 0xf8, 0xff, 0xda, 0xff, 0xe5, 0xff, 0xb4, 0xff, 0xd4, 0xff, 0xa3, 0xff, 0xca, 0xff, 0xb6, 0xff, 0xde, 0xff, 0xc9, 0xff, 0xf3, 0xff, 0xc0, 0xff, 0xeb, 0xff, 0xc7, 0xff, 0xec, 0xff, 0xc9, 0xff, 0xe2, 0xff, 0xa6, 0xff, 0xb4, 0xff, 0x79, 0xff, 0x82, 0xff, 0x37, 0xff, 0x42, 0xff, 0x24, 0xff, 0x2d, 0xff, 0x13, 0xff, 0x14, 0xff, 0xc3, 0xfe, 0xd5, 0xfe, 0xb9, 0xfe, 0xcf, 0xfe, 0xd4, 0xfe, 0xe9, 0xfe, 0xfc, 0xfe, 0x2d, 0xff, 0x4c...

...de, 0xdf, 0xe1 }, { 0xde, 0xdf, 0xe0, 0xe2 }, { 0xdf, 0xe0, 0xe1, 0xe3 }, { 0xe0, 0xe1, 0xe2, 0xe4 }, { 0xe1, 0xe2, 0xe3, 0xe5 }, { 0xe2, 0xe3, 0xe4, 0xe6 }, { 0xe3, 0xe4, 0xe5, 0xe7 }, { 0xe4, 0xe5, 0xe6, 0xe8 }, { 0xe5, 0xe6, 0xe7, 0xe9 }, { 0xe6, 0xe7, 0xe8, 0xea }, { 0xe7, 0xe8, 0xe9, 0xeb }, { 0xe8, 0xe9, 0xea, 0xec }, { 0xe9, 0xea, 0xeb, 0xed }, { 0xea, 0xeb, 0xec, 0xee }, { 0xeb, 0xec, 0xed, 0xef }, { 0xec, 0xed, 0xee, 0xf0 }, { 0xed, 0xee, 0xef, 0xf1 }, { 0xee, 0xef, 0xf0, 0xf2 }, { 0xef, 0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf3 }, { 0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf4 }, { 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf5 }, { 0xf...

...c -o test2 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5.4.0/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/Scrt1.o: In function `_start': (.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main' /tmp/test2-c642ef.o: In function `dfs$main': test2.bc:(.text+0x96): undefined reference to `dfs$dfsan_create_label' test2.bc:(.text+0xeb): undefined reference to `dfs$dfsan_set_label' /tmp/test2-c642ef.o: In function `dfs$dfsw$dfsan_create_label': test2.bc:(.text+0x16e): undefined reference to `dfs$dfsan_create_label' /tmp/test2-c642ef.o: In function `dfs$dfsw$dfsan_set_label': test2.bc:(.text+0x1e4): undefined r...

...26.168496] 3.13.6 #1270 Not tainted > [ 326.168500] ------------------------------------------------------- > [ 326.168504] ldconfig/22297 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 326.168507] (&(&priv->fan->lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffffa00d5363>] nouveau_fan_update+0xeb/0x252 [nouveau] > [ 326.168551] > but task is already holding lock: > [ 326.168555] (&(&priv->sensor.alarm_program_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffffa00d6a8a>] alarm_timer_callback+0xf1/0x179 [nouveau] > [ 326.168587] > which lock already depends on the new...

...his: .text .align 8 .globl Main_main1_info .type Main_main1_info, @object Main_main1_info: .Lc1Df: jmp .Ltmp .long Main_main1_srt-(Main_main1_info)+0 .long 0 .quad 4294967299 .quad 0 .quad 270582939663 .Ltmp: leaq -8(%rbp),%rax cmpq %r15,%rax jb .Lc1Dh Since the jmp is a fixed 2 bytes (0xEB, tablesize), all references to the table can still be done with trivial pc/RIP-relative addressing within the closure, and you just need one pointer for both the table and the closure data. If you want to get extra special and tricky, you could be even more devious by storing "Main_main1_info...

...isassembly of section .text: 00000000 <.text>: 0: e9 fc ff ff ff jmp 0x1 And here's assembly which is then run through the compiler. $ echo "jmp _label"|llvm-mc-mp-3.7 -assemble -triple=i386 -show-encoding |tee b.s .text jmp _label # encoding: [0xeb,A] # fixup A - offset: 1, value: _label-1, kind: FK_PCRel_1 $ clang -c b.s $ otool -tvj b.o b.o: (__TEXT,__text) section 0000000000000000 e900000000 jmp 0x5 As you can see, both produced near jumps. (I assume the difference between the offsets has to...

> Since the jmp is a fixed 2 bytes (0xEB, tablesize), all references to the table can still be done with trivial pc/RIP-relative addressing within the closure, and you just need one pointer for both the table and the closure data. Only if tablesize fits in 127 bytes. Otherwise it will use 0xE9-based encoding which is larger. -- With bes...

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:06 PM Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 June 2016 at 16:36, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Peter suggested just writing out '.byte 0xeb, 0x09' and that allowed the > > jump instruction to bypass the relaxation, so that fixes my immediate > > problem. The question still stands though whether it should be possible > to > > do through the instruction builder interface. > > > > I don't think so....

...29, 2016 at 12:06 PM Rafael Espíndola > > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 22 June 2016 at 16:36, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev > >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > Peter suggested just writing out '.byte 0xeb, 0x09' and that allowed > the > >> > jump instruction to bypass the relaxation, so that fixes my immediate > >> > problem. The question still stands though whether it should be > possible > >> > to > >> > do through the instruction builder i...

...how_trace_log_lvl+0x10/0x20 [<c04050e2>] show_stack_log_lvl+0x8c/0x94 [<c040520f>] show_registers+0x125/0x191 [<c0404c3b>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [<c0405411>] die+0x196/0x296 [<c05fd73f>] do_page_fault+0x3ea/0x4b8 [<c0434d15>] kthread+0x0/0xeb [<c05fd355>] do_page_fault+0x0/0x4b8 [<c0404a71>] error_code+0x39/0x40 [<c0434d15>] kthread+0x0/0xeb [<c0404c3b>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address c0613dbf Printing eip: c0404c44 *pde = 2f9b5163 Re...

...nderstand the structure of an opus UDP payload. Recently i capture a test audio containing opus codec. I notice that some packets contains the same number of payload block.(e.g.58 bytes) When i look at the UDP data i see the first few four bytes were having these hex representation, 0x0d 0x80 0x5d 0xeb Can someone explain to me the meaning of the first four bytes in the UDP payload for opus. Im sorry if my question seems to be naive but im just curious about opus codec and the mechanism behind. Thank you. Hope to hear your response. Regards. AJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTM...