[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1303142116060.12301@argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:52:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Pavel Kankovsky <peak@...o.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: strace
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> restart_syscall is syscall number 0. Could the difference between older
> and newer asm/ptrace.h versions be so fatal?
Regrettably, I have not paid much attention the development Owl recently,
therefore I do not know what are those older and newer versions but
some reshuffling of pt_regs happened between 2.6.18 and 2.6.32.
2.6.18:
struct pt_regs {
long ebx;
long ecx;
long edx;
long esi;
long edi;
long ebp;
long eax;
int xds;
int xes;
long orig_eax;
long eip;
int xcs;
long eflags;
long esp;
int xss;
};
2.6.32:
struct pt_regs {
long ebx;
long ecx;
long edx;
long esi;
long edi;
long ebp;
long eax;
int xds;
int xes;
int xfs;
int xgs;
long orig_eax;
long eip;
int xcs;
long eflags;
long esp;
int xss;
};
orig_eax (syscall number) has shifted.
But why would it matter? strace uses user_regs_struct from user.h that
did not change and any changes in pt_regs layout should have been hidden
by the kernel.
PS: De ja vu? <http://www.openwall.com/lists/owl-dev/2012/07/19/1> :)
--
Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak / Jeremiah 9:21 \
"For death is come up into our MS Windows(tm)..." \ 21st century edition /
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
