On 29 Sep 2006 11:13:19 +0200
Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:10:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On 29 Sep 2006 10:57:45 +0200
> > Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Some architectures (powerpc) implement WARN using the same mechanism;
> > > > if the illegal instruction was the result of a WARN, then report_bug()
> > > > returns 1; otherwise it returns 0.
> > >
> > > In theory we could do that on x86 too (and skipping the instruction),
> > > the only problem
> > > is that the only guaranteed to fault opcode is ud2 :/. Ok maybe we could
> > > reserve some int XXX vector.
> > >
> > > % gid WARN_ON | grep -v arch | wc -l
> > > 299
> >
> > powerpc sets a bit in the __LINE__ number to indicate that it was a
> > WARN_ON. That'll work on all architectures.
>
> We still would need an architecture dependent way to skip the opcode
> though (just returning would raise it again). On x86
>
> regs->eip += 2 (rip on x86-64)
>
> should be enough
>
We have all that now. Do:
if (report_bug(regs->eip) == BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN)
regs>eip += 2;
(The powerpc is_warning_bug() implementation needs to be hoisted into
generic code)
-
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]
