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
  • #3578
Closed
Open
Issue created Apr 25, 2019 by Hendrik Greving@hgreving2304Contributor

Support missing x86 instructions, fix existing ones.

Pulling in binutils assembler tests leads to finding some cases that I think we do not support.

0f ff 07 ud0 (%edi),%eax Intel's Spec. mentions this:

  1. Some older processors decode the UD0 instruction without a ModR/M byte. As a result, those processors would deliver an invalidopcode exception instead of a fault on instruction fetch when the instruction with a ModR/M byte (and any implied bytes) would cross a page or segment boundary.

Do we fall in this category? Looks like SW can't really rely on this instruction being decoded correctly, so we don't necessarily have to support it.

I will add more if I find anything.

xref #3577 (AMD exclusive).

Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking