> And debug simulators that can be made to trap such accesses, and in most
> cases processors which fault such an access (so you find it) but don't
> provide enough information to restart.
>
> The testing isn't that hard for a given embedded system and having done
> work Linux does not need other changes re-breaking things.
Hopefully everybody who deploys these systems knows this. It seems
like a open death trap to me, especially since the consequences
are so severe: remote packet of death, could be a recall for
a network conntected embedded device that doesn't easily allow firmware
update. And they would rightfully blame Linux.
It would be much safer if the parts of the stack that weren't
audited/tested were marked this way and check for BROKEN_UNALIGNED or similar.
Also frankly I'm surprised that whoever designed these systems
didn't learn from the old M68000 who made this mistake the first time.
-Andi
-
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]
