kdb
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: KDB support for x86_64?

To: Peter Wainwright <prw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: KDB support for x86_64?
From: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 19:32:56 +1000
Cc: jfv@xxxxxxxxxxxx, kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1143877075.5788.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Cyclades Corporation
References: <1143374303.4233.0.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060327013234.GC7617@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1143877075.5788.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: kdb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
Hi.
On Saturday 01 April 2006 17:37, Peter Wainwright wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 17:32 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 08:00:46AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Sunday 26 March 2006 21:58, Peter Wainwright wrote:
> > > > Is KDB still maintained for the x86_64 architecture? oss.sgi.com has
> > > > x86_64 patches for kernel 2.6.14 but not for more recent
> > > > kernels. I tried to forward-port it to 2.6.16 myself but it is
> > > > not giving a proper backtrace (%rsp seems to be wrong at
> > > > breakpoints).
> > > >
> > > > Peter Wainwright
> > >
> > > I would find it useful too. I've forward ported it as well, and also
> > > have the same backtrace problem. I guess it's probably simple to fix,
> > > but it doesn't irk me enough that I've bothered to try to fix it.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Nigel
> >
> > Did you have the problem with the last patch, there was
> > some backtrace changes that I accepted that I did not have
> > time to test. It would be useful if you could check a before
> > and after of that code.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jack
>
> Sometime recently the following change occurred in
> arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c:
>
> -       set_system_gate(3,&int3);
> +       set_system_gate_ist(3,&int3,DEBUG_STACK); /* int3 can be called
> from all */
>
> The int3 handler now runs in a special interrupt stack using
> the "long-mode interrupt-stack table".
> So calculating the process %rsp from the address of the pt_regs
> structure no longer works. How to figure out the address of the
> original stack is something I haven't figured out yet because I
> have no time to read the fine "AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual".
>
> Peter

Thanks for the info. Whenever you have a patch, I'll be happy to test it. I'm 
not about to complain though, because people don't always get immediate 
replies from me either. (And even if they did, your time is your time, not 
mine!).

Thanks!

Nigel

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBELkjON0y+n1M3mo0RAke4AKChw3n/NrhWpA0UN6jzXQ2qZ5o/2QCcDL/1
4wiyfL5XYPPgzmz4joSoc18=
=emZs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>