On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:00:18 -0400,
"Alan D. Brunelle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Isn't the real issue here that if kprobes attempts to put in a 'break
>0x80200' into a B-slot that it instead becomes a 'break.b 0' -- as the
>break.b does not accept an immediate value?
break.b is a B9 type instruction, which does take an imm21 value. It
is the hardware that does not store imm21 in CR.IIM when break.b is
issued.
>Kprobes does have the two cases covered in traps.c (case 0 - when a
>B-slot break is used, and case 0x80200 for a non-B-slot break). But this
>doesn't seem very clean. (If it was decided that one should not overload
>the break 0 case, and instead use a uniquely defined break number, then
>it fails on a B-slot probe. If it is OK to overload the break 0 case,
>why have another break number at all?)
Mainly for documentation when looking at the assembler code. break 0
is used for BUG(), coding a different value in the break instruction
for the debugger helps the person debugging the debugger :(. I have no
problem with coding two cases in ia64_bad_break() in order to work
around the hardware "feature".
Also consider the case where your debugger allows users to code a
deliberate entry to the debugger, like KDB_ENTER(). That case always
requires a separate break imm21 value, because the break point is not
known to the debugger until the code is executed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
