Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • D dynamorio
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 1,467
    • Issues 1,467
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 44
    • Merge requests 44
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Package Registry
    • Infrastructure Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • DynamoRIO
  • dynamorio
  • Issues
  • #4017
Closed
Open
Issue created Jan 14, 2020 by Derek Bruening@derekbrueningContributor

drcachesim offline trace has wrong size for 2-byte nop

We recently hit a case where the x86 nop 0x66 0x90 is recorded into an offline trace and the post-processing stores 1 as its instruction fetch size, instead of 2. I tracked it down to #3271 (closed): raw2trace uses decode_from_copy() and decodes 0x66 0x90 into an OP_nop instruction, but because of the re-relativization worries decode_from_copy() marks the raw bits as invalid. Thus, raw2trace's call to instr_length() does a re-encode which simply encodes an OP_nop, resulting in 0x90 and a length of 1. Xref #3339 and other issues: another case of an encoding feature the IR does not store.

Rather than splitting the opcode or storing sthg about a prefix (we do have a requires-prefix feature -- but it's at the opcode level) I'm thinking we should just fix #3271 (closed), and #731 (closed) while we're at it. That then leaves any other issues of keeping the 0x66 as something much lower priority along the lines of #3339.

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking