On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:08:11 +0200,
Olaf Hering <olh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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().
There is kdba_verify_rw(), I can always add a kdba_verify_r() function
as well.
>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')?
ia64 does not allow bt <address>, because of the strange ia64 unwind
data. Other architectures such as i386 and x86_64 just use the
address, if it is invalid then you get an oops, kdb recovers from the
oops and continues.
---------------------------
Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
|