kdb
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: kdb version of acces_ok

To: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kdb version of acces_ok
From: Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:08:11 +0200
Cc: kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <24048.1129079380@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
References: <20051011132818.GA17868@suse.de> <24048.1129079380@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
Sender: kdb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt und vi sind doch schneller als Notes (und GroupWise)
 On Wed, Oct 12, Keith Owens wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:28:18 +0200, 
> Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >What is the kdb equivalent of access_ok()?
> 
> kdb_getarea() and kdb_getarea_size(), you would normally use
> kdb_getarea().  It uses __copy_to_user_inatomic() to catch invalid
> addresses and recover.

I was hoping for a generic function that checks wether a given memory
range is valid.

In my case, it should have checked sizeof(struct task_struct) at addr
before calling kdba_bt_address().

I will add such a check to kdba_bt_stack_ppc now. How do other archs
deal with 'bt 72' (which should have been 'btp 72')?

-- 
short story of a lazy sysadmin:
 alias appserv=wotan
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>