search for: nopw

I have a bit of a riddle: In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19904 I'm trying to spell the following assembly: .palign 2, 0x90 jmp +0x9 nopw 512(%rax,%rax,1) // rest of the code I try the following snippet to accomplish this: OutStreamer->EmitLabel(CurSled); OutStreamer->EmitCodeAlignment(4); auto Target = OutContext.createLinkerPrivateTempSymbol(); // Use a two-byte `jmp`. This version of JMP takes an 8-bit relative...

...bar(); foo(); __xray_patch(); foo(); } --->8 test.cc 8<--- A snippet of the disassembly (llvm-objdump -disassemble test.bin) looks like: --->8 disassembly 8<--- _Z3foov: 400cb0: e9 09 00 00 00 jmp 9 <_Z3foov+0xE> 400cb5: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 02 00 00 nopw 512(%rax,%rax) 400cbe: 55 pushq %rbp 400cbf: 48 89 e5 movq %rsp, %rbp 400cc2: 48 83 ec 10 subq $16, %rsp 400cc6: 48 bf c5 0e 40 00 00 00 00 00 movabsq $4198085, %rdi 400cd0: b0 00 movb $0, %al 400cd2: e8 a9 f9 ff ff...

...h this incantation when I load and disassemble from gdb. I'm seeing a 5-instruction jump, followed by the nops. If I disassemble with llvm-objdump though I see the following: _Z3foov: 400c10: e9 09 00 00 00 jmp 9 <_Z3foov+0xE> 400c15: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 02 00 00 nopw 512(%rax,%rax) I'm not sure whether the extra 0's after '0xe9 0x09' are alignment padding (though I was expecing 0x90 to show up if this was an alignment issue). Is there anything else I can try here? Thanks in advance! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachmen...

...ling convention I see quite the opposite. e.g. 0000000000005e30 <hipe_test::test1>: 5e30: 49 01 ef add %rbp,%r15 <========== RBP and R15 contain arguments and RBP is clobbered 5e33: c3 retq 5e34: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 5e3b: 00 00 00 5e3e: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax 0000000000005e40 <hipe_test::test2>: 5e40: e9 eb ff ff ff jmpq 5e30 <hipe_test::test1> 5e45: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 5e4...

...d disassemble from gdb. I'm seeing a > 5-instruction jump, followed by the nops. > > If I disassemble with llvm-objdump though I see the following: > > _Z3foov: > 400c10: e9 09 00 00 00 jmp 9 <_Z3foov+0xE> > 400c15: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 02 00 00 nopw 512(%rax,%rax) > > I'm not sure whether the extra 0's after '0xe9 0x09' are alignment padding > (though I was expecing 0x90 to show up if this was an alignment issue). > > Is there anything else I can try here? > > Thanks in advance! > -------------- next...

...} > --->8 test.cc 8<--- > > A snippet of the disassembly (llvm-objdump -disassemble test.bin) looks > like: > > --->8 disassembly 8<--- > _Z3foov: > 400cb0: e9 09 00 00 00 jmp 9 <_Z3foov+0xE> > 400cb5: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 02 00 00 nopw 512(%rax,%rax) > 400cbe: 55 pushq %rbp > 400cbf: 48 89 e5 movq %rsp, %rbp > 400cc2: 48 83 ec 10 subq $16, %rsp > 400cc6: 48 bf c5 0e 40 00 00 00 00 00 movabsq $4198085, %rdi > 400cd0: b0 00 movb $0, %al >...

...1 4c 24 20 vinsertps $0x10,0x20(%rsp),%xmm1,%xmm1 4f: 10 50: c4 e3 71 21 4c 24 10 vinsertps $0x20,0x10(%rsp),%xmm1,%xmm1 57: 20 58: c4 e3 71 21 c0 30 vinsertps $0x30,%xmm0,%xmm1,%xmm0 5e: 48 83 c4 48 add $0x48,%rsp 62: c3 retq 63: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 6a: 00 00 00 6d: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax) 0000000000000070 <_Z4fct2Dv4_f>: 70: 48 83 ec 48 sub $0x48,%rsp 74: c5 f8 29 04 24 vmovaps %xmm0,(%rsp) 79: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 7e <_Z4fct2Dv4_f+0xe> 7e: c5 f8 29 44 24 3...

...   48 bf c0 05 40 00 00     movabs $0x4005c0,%rdi       40050b:    00 00 00       40050e:    e8 cd fe ff ff           callq  4003e0 <puts at plt>       400513:    5d                       pop    %rbp       400514:    c3                       retq       400515:    66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00     nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)       40051c:    00 00 00       40051f:    90                       nop     0000000000400520 <main>:       400520:    55                       push   %rbp       400521:    48 89 e5                 mov    %rsp,%rbp       400524:    e8 d7 ff ff ff           callq  40...

...0x8(%esp),%eax 4: 8b 54 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%edx 8: 8b 4c 24 0c mov 0xc(%esp),%ecx c: 89 4a 04 mov %ecx,0x4(%edx) f: 89 02 mov %eax,(%edx) 11: c3 ret 12: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%eax,%eax,1) 19: 00 00 00 1c: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%eax) 00000020 <indvbl_read64>: 20: 8b 4c 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%ecx 24: 8b 01 mov (%ecx),%eax 26: 8b 51 04 mov 0x4(%ecx),%edx 29: c3...

...in dn = uid=ldaproot,o=zolnott,dc=de ldap filter = (&(uid=%u)(objectclass=sambaAccount)) ldap ssl = start_tls Here my slapd.conf: TLSCipherSuite HIGH:MEDIUM:+SSLv2:RSA TLSCertificateFile /etc/openldap/www.zolnott.de-ldap-crt.pem TLSCertificateKeyFile /etc/openldap/www.zolnott.de-ldap-key-nopw.pem Here my log.smbd: [2003/02/18 01:40:12, 0] passdb/pdb_ldap.c:ldap_open_connection(182) Failed to issue the StartTLS instruction: Can't contact LDAP server [2003/02/18 01:40:12, 1] smbd/password.c:pass_check_smb(545) Couldn't find user 'drow' in passdb. [2003/02/18 01:40:1...

...> d9: 89 54 24 0c movl %edx, 12(%esp) > dd: 89 ca movl %ecx, %edx > df: 83 c4 40 addl $64, %esp > e2: 5e popl %esi > e3: c3 retl > e4: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 nopw > %cs:(%eax,%eax) > > _XEP:setfoo: > f0: 8b 44 24 04 movl 4(%esp), %eax > f4: 83 f8 00 cmpl $0, %eax > f7: 0f 84 05 00 00 00 je 5 <_XEP:setfoo+0x12> > fd: e8 00 00 00 00 calll 0 <_XEP:setfo...

Hi everybody, I have set up a Linuxbox with Samba and security=server in smb.conf. So far this works, the users are authenticated on the NT-Server as they shuold but then they´re mapped to guest user. When I create the User on my linux box with the same username as on the NT-Server it works OK, no matter what password this user has on the linux box. The real problem is, that I don´t like the Idea

...l %edx, 12(%esp) >>> dd: 89 ca movl %ecx, %edx >>> df: 83 c4 40 addl $64, %esp >>> e2: 5e popl %esi >>> e3: c3 retl >>> e4: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 nopw >>> %cs:(%eax,%eax) >>> >>> _XEP:setfoo: >>> f0: 8b 44 24 04 movl 4(%esp), %eax >>> f4: 83 f8 00 cmpl $0, %eax >>> f7: 0f 84 05 00 00 00 je 5 <_XEP:setfoo+0x12> >>>...

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > Uh. Turns out that if I hide the pointer to @foo from LLVM by passing it > through an opaque identity function ... then everything works fine. > > Is this a bug in LLVM or is there some magic involving globals I'm > misunderstanding? > This looks like a bug in the handling of

...e jmp 8a <_start+0x7a> 8c: eb 00 jmp 8e <_start+0x7e> 8e: 48 83 c4 40 add $0x40,%rsp 92: 5d pop %rbp 93: c3 retq 94: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 data16 data16 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 9b: 00 00 00 00 00 00000000000000a0 <__udivti3>: a0: 55 push %rbp a1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp a4: 48 89 7d f0 mov %rdi,-0x10(%rbp) a8: 48 89 75 f8 mov %rsi,-0x8(%rbp) ac:...

...8a <_start+0x7a> > 8c: eb 00 jmp 8e <_start+0x7e> > 8e: 48 83 c4 40 add $0x40,%rsp > 92: 5d pop %rbp > 93: c3 retq > 94: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 data16 data16 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) > 9b: 00 00 00 00 00 > > 00000000000000a0 <__udivti3>: > a0: 55 push %rbp > a1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp > a4: 48 89 7d f0 mov %rdi,-0x10(%rbp) > a8: 48 89 75 f8...

...> > 8c: eb 00 jmp 8e <_start+0x7e> > > 8e: 48 83 c4 40 add $0x40,%rsp > > 92: 5d pop %rbp > > 93: c3 retq > > 94: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 data16 data16 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) > > 9b: 00 00 00 00 00 > > > > 00000000000000a0 <__udivti3>: > > a0: 55 push %rbp > > a1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp > > a4: 48 89 7d f0 mov %rdi,-0x10(%rbp) &gt...

...add %al,(%rax) 2: 90 nop 3: 48 8b 05 39 32 0c 00 mov 0xc3239(%rip),%rax # 0xc3243 a: 64 c7 00 26 00 00 00 movl $0x26,%fs:(%rax) 11: 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffffffffffff,%rax 18: c3 retq 19: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 20: 00 00 00 23: b8 10 00 00 00 mov $0x10,%eax 28: 0f 05 syscall 2a:* 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax <-- trapping instruction 30: 73 01 jae 0x33 32: c3 retq 33: 48 8b 0d 0...

...add %al,(%rax) 2: 90 nop 3: 48 8b 05 39 32 0c 00 mov 0xc3239(%rip),%rax # 0xc3243 a: 64 c7 00 26 00 00 00 movl $0x26,%fs:(%rax) 11: 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffffffffffff,%rax 18: c3 retq 19: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 20: 00 00 00 23: b8 10 00 00 00 mov $0x10,%eax 28: 0f 05 syscall 2a:* 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax <-- trapping instruction 30: 73 01 jae 0x33 32: c3 retq 33: 48 8b 0d 0...

On 31.05.2011 19:45, Devang Patel wrote: > > On May 31, 2011, at 10:36 AM, trash-stuff at gmx.de > <mailto:trash-stuff at gmx.de> wrote: > >> On 31.05.2011 19:22, Devang Patel wrote: >>> >>> On May 30, 2011, at 11:11 AM,trash-stuff at gmx.de >>> <mailto:trash-stuff at gmx.de>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>