Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An In-Kernel x86 Disassembler For Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An In-Kernel x86 Disassembler For Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: An In-Kernel x86 Disassembler For Linux Kernel

    Patches for an x86 disassembler for the Linux kernel have been proposed. An in-kernel disassembler could prove useful for developers in cases of kernel panics and other happenings...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA4MTI

  • #2
    Linus thinks disassmblers and debuggers are for people who cant code.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      That could also be used for safe sandboxing: the disassembler could be combined with the assembler to ensure that binary code submitted to the kernel is 'safe' to execute - even in kernel-space.
      So we will finally get the truth behind the binary BLOBs...? Not sure if AMD/Nvidia will like that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yaay, let's put everything into the kernel. In 2 years we pull in gcc, in 3 years we'll have in-kernel firefox. Kernelcode is just *faster*.
        I fear for Tanenbaum's health today.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mazumoto View Post
          Yaay, let's put everything into the kernel. In 2 years we pull in gcc, in 3 years we'll have in-kernel firefox. Kernelcode is just *faster*.
          I fear for Tanenbaum's health today.
          I think you have misinterpreted something:

          the disassembler could be combined with the assembler to ensure that binary code submitted to the kernel is 'safe' to execute - even in kernel-space.
          isn't equal to:

          submitted to inclusion

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TAXI View Post
            So we will finally get the truth behind the binary BLOBs...? Not sure if AMD/Nvidia will like that.
            They will if it will show blobs aren't doing nasty things. That will probably mean you don't have to use Open Source drivers to be more secure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              They will if it will show blobs aren't doing nasty things. That will probably mean you don't have to use Open Source drivers to be more secure.
              They do everything to keep their BLOBs a secret. They even contain codes not owned by the company (third party code) so seeing the sources will be a legal disaster. Do you still think they will like it that the code gets disassembled on-the-fly? I think their lawyers won't even notice that (as long as there is no crash) the disassembled code won't be shown to the users, they just read "disassemble" and cry: No!

              //EDIT: Also, what will happen if the UVD part of fglrx crashes Bridgemans PC? He will have disassembled, copyrighted UVD code at his screen... Will he ever be allowed to even think about implementing UVD into the FOSS driver again?
              Last edited by V10lator; 04-05-2012, 03:20 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TAXI View Post
                They do everything to keep their BLOBs a secret. They even contain codes not owned by the company (third party code) so seeing the sources will be a legal disaster. Do you still think they will like it that the code gets disassembled on-the-fly? I think their lawyers won't even notice that (as long as there is no crash) the disassembled code won't be shown to the users, they just read "disassemble" and cry: No!

                //EDIT: Also, what will happen if the UVD part of fglrx crashes Bridgemans PC? He will have disassembled, copyrighted UVD code at his screen... Will he ever be allowed to even think about implementing UVD into the FOSS driver again?
                1. How old are olly and softice? Any "tragedies" since then? If someone really wanted to, he would already have ripped everything away. You donīt need linux kernel disassembler for that. Actually, I think amd and nvidia rip periodically parts of each other.

                2. (EDIT) If they put debugging symbols etc that would be their problem. And I donīt think Bridgeman uses linux, eitherway he is not forced to it.

                "Will he ever be allowed to even think about"
                I never knew AMD censors his brains.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TAXI View Post
                  They do everything to keep their BLOBs a secret. They even contain codes not owned by the company (third party code) so seeing the sources will be a legal disaster. Do you still think they will like it that the code gets disassembled on-the-fly? I think their lawyers won't even notice that (as long as there is no crash) the disassembled code won't be shown to the users, they just read "disassemble" and cry: No!

                  //EDIT: Also, what will happen if the UVD part of fglrx crashes Bridgemans PC? He will have disassembled, copyrighted UVD code at his screen... Will he ever be allowed to even think about implementing UVD into the FOSS driver again?
                  Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  1. How old are olly and softice? Any "tragedies" since then? If someone really wanted to, he would already have ripped everything away. You donīt need linux kernel disassembler for that. Actually, I think amd and nvidia rip periodically parts of each other.

                  2. (EDIT) If they put debugging symbols etc that would be their problem. And I donīt think Bridgeman uses linux, eitherway he is not forced to it.

                  "Will he ever be allowed to even think about"
                  I never knew AMD censors his brains.
                  Since Bridgman is a part of AMD and AMD are the license holder, they can do anything they want with the source code (and the disassembled code) as long as it complies with company policies, legal department and so on.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                    If they put debugging symbols etc that would be their problem. And I donīt think Bridgeman uses linux, eitherway he is not forced to it.
                    I use Linux, but I rarely have time to watch video on any OS other than very occasional testing and all the damn video ads that are showing up everywhere.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      I never knew AMD censors his brains.
                      Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                      Since Bridgman is a part of AMD and AMD are the license holder, they can do anything they want with the source code (and the disassembled code) as long as it complies with company policies, legal department and so on.
                      That's the point: AMD is not the license holder for all of the fglrx code. There's third-party code included. It if where that easy we had seen at least some code copied and adjusted from fglrx to rX00g.

                      bridgman, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you tell that the fglrx team is not allowed to show you any code?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                        Since Bridgman is a part of AMD and AMD are the license holder, they can do anything they want with the source code (and the disassembled code) as long as it complies with company policies, legal department and so on.
                        I think the idea is that if someone sees the fglrx code and it sticks to his/her subconscious, and then that person goes to implement the open source driver, they may unintentionally copy ideas or code from fglrx to OSS. There are, therefore, internal safeguards against the OSS devs being totally exposed to the FGLRX code.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X