Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge and fix Windows rewriter #120

Open
jdetter opened this issue Jul 13, 2016 · 5 comments
Open

Merge and fix Windows rewriter #120

jdetter opened this issue Jul 13, 2016 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement feature-request Functionality to be implemented help wanted

Comments

@jdetter
Copy link
Contributor

jdetter commented Jul 13, 2016

From Bill:

The fork at https://github.com/ea/dyninst contains significant steps towards completion of the Windows binary rewriter. It is missing some key elements, however; its handling of relocation fixup is IIRC incomplete, and it produces binaries that do not execute cleanly.

This issue should be closed and replaced with specific bugs once that fork is merged back to a dyninst/dyninst topic branch and we have evaluated where things stand after another year+ of work on Windows parsing and relocation handling on the analysis side of things.

@jdetter jdetter added this to the Release 9.3.0 milestone Jul 13, 2016
@wrwilliams wrwilliams removed this from the Release 10.0.0 milestone Apr 10, 2018
@richinseattle
Copy link

Can someone give us an update on what the status is of merging this work into current trunk? It was stated on the Dyninst release notes that Windows support was targeted for 9.3.1 but I don't think that happened. The above fork was done as part of work on my team at Cisco Talos and we would like to see forward progress with our efforts. I know there have been additional patches submitted by Van Hauser and Patrick Stach to fix some of the register borrowing that I believe was part of the reason our emitted binaries were broken since MSVC makes heavy use of rsi and rdi which were effected.

@mxz297 mxz297 closed this as completed Oct 9, 2019
@richinseattle
Copy link

Issue closed without comment or status updates after we sent significant patches your way?

@mxz297
Copy link
Member

mxz297 commented Oct 11, 2019

I am really sorry. No human resource has been devoted to the development of the Windows support in the past a few years.

@richinseattle
Copy link

Is that a reason to close this bug? Earlier comments and more recent activity indicated this would eventually be taken up again since there was supposed to be work on the Windows DBI functionality though I haven’t seen much discussion or documentation of that and there hasn’t been a windows release in years.

@mxz297
Copy link
Member

mxz297 commented Oct 11, 2019

As far as I know, there is no Windows development plan in the near future unless there are going to be new developers. Unfortunately as I mentioned, there hasn't been a windows release in years exactly because no human resource has been spent on Windows.

I am fine to leave this issue open if we do have resource for Windows development.

Thanks for your feedback!

@mxz297 mxz297 reopened this Oct 11, 2019
@hainest hainest added the feature-request Functionality to be implemented label May 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement feature-request Functionality to be implemented help wanted
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants