On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:05:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Borislav Petkov wrote: >> Breakpoint 4, 0x00040200 in ?? () >> 1: x/i ($cs << 4) + $eip 0x40300: lea (%si),%dx >> (gdb) p/x $ds >> $1 = 0x18 > > > This isn't the setup code, it's doing something else. > > Could you try this again, but when you get to this point, if the > instruction displayed isn't a "jmp" instruction, and $ds doesn't have the > right value, enter "c" and see if you hit the proper break later. Hi, i decided to do some cheating :) and skipped the breakpoint where it used to stop (0x40200). (by the way, hitting 'c' wouldn't continue at all and keep executing the same instruction over and over again). This time it seems it behaves as expected: GNU gdb 6.6-debian Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "i486-linux-gnu". (gdb) target remote localhost:1234 Remote debugging using localhost:1234 0x0000fff0 in ?? () (gdb) set architecture i8086 The target architecture is assumed to be i8086 (gdb) disp/i ($cs << 4)+$eip 1: x/i ($cs << 4) + $eip 0xffff0: ljmp $0xf000,$0xe05b (gdb) br *0x10200 Breakpoint 1 at 0x10200 (gdb) br *0x20200 Breakpoint 2 at 0x20200 (gdb) br *0x30200 Breakpoint 3 at 0x30200 (gdb) br *0x50200 Breakpoint 4 at 0x50200 (gdb) br *0x60200 Breakpoint 5 at 0x60200 (gdb) br *0x70200 Breakpoint 6 at 0x70200 (gdb) br *0x80200 Breakpoint 7 at 0x80200 (gdb) br *0x90200 Breakpoint 8 at 0x90200 (gdb) c Continuing. Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap. 0x00000000 in ?? () 1: x/i ($cs << 4) + $eip 0x90200: jmp 0x9023c (gdb) p/x $ds $1 = 0x9000 (gdb) dump memory setup.dump 0x90000 0x98000 (gdb) -- Regards/Gruß, Boris.
Attachment:
setup.dump
Description: Binary data
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- References:
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Xudong Guan <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Remove fs.h from mm.h
- Next by Date: [PATCH] ufs: implement show_options
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...
- Index(es):