On 6/1/06, tkho@ucla.edu tkho@ucla.edu wrote:
One thought that has recently crossed my mind: Building off his framework and putting much of the code in the server may not have been a great idea, since the only real need for the server is to get the unix pid of the thread.
Nah, I think it was the right thing to do. You definitely want the server to do the dirty work here.
- /* return base address of allocated memory in eax */
- asm("movl %0, %%eax"
::"r"(mem):"%eax");- asm("int3"); /* execution doesn't continue past here */
Better surround that with #if defined(LINUX) && defined(__i386__), or whatever the right symbol is, and explain better why 'int3' is how you return to the caller of ptrace.
printf("using allocator in kernel32 at 0x%08x\n",(unsigned) allocator);
You might want to strip out the debugging prints...
+enum remote_op_code +{
- REMOTE_OP_NEW_THREAD,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_ALLOC,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_FREE,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_PROTECT,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_QUERY,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_MAP,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_UNMAP,
- REMOTE_OP_VM_FLUSH
+};
I would have ripped out any part of his patch you're not implementing, just to keep the size down...
case REMOTE_OP_VM_ALLOC:{+#if defined(linux) && defined(__i386__)
int pid;struct user_regs_struct oldregs, regs;struct remote_op_params_vm_alloc *params;struct remote_op_result_vm_alloc result;- ...
You probably want to hide all the ptrace stuff inside a separate function called, maybe, posix_remote_mmap(...).
Also, which bugzilla bugs / conformance tests will this fix? If the answer is 'none', maybe you need to write them. - Dan