On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 17:59 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Yup, I think I ditched most of them.. for some reason I decided it
> > couldn't happen, but maybe I'm wrong ?
>
> Well, it's a BUG_ON. It's supposed to be for something that "can't happen".
> That's why it's a sanity check, not a wild
> Yup, I think I ditched most of them.. for some reason I decided it
> couldn't happen, but maybe I'm wrong ?
Well, it's a BUG_ON. It's supposed to be for something that "can't happen".
That's why it's a sanity check, not a wild assertion. ;-)
The 2/2 patch is an example of a bug that CHECK_FULL
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 16:50 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> This restores the CHECK_FULL_REGS sanity check to every place that can
> access the nonvolatile GPRs for ptrace. This is already done for
> native-bitwidth PTRACE_PEEKUSR, but was omitted for many other cases
> (32-bit ptrace, PTRACE_GETR
This restores the CHECK_FULL_REGS sanity check to every place that can
access the nonvolatile GPRs for ptrace. This is already done for
native-bitwidth PTRACE_PEEKUSR, but was omitted for many other cases
(32-bit ptrace, PTRACE_GETREGS, etc.); I think there may have been more
uniform checks befor
