Sunday, December 11, 2005, 11:23:18 AM, Peter Beutner wrote: > Vitaliy Margolen schrieb: >> Sunday, December 11, 2005, 10:36:39 AM, Peter Beutner wrote: >> >>>Vitaliy Margolen schrieb: >>> >>>>Sunday, December 11, 2005, 9:07:06 AM, Peter Beutner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Vitaliy Margolen schrieb: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>ChangeLog: >>>>>>ntdll: Program could modify Dr* registers in segv_handler too. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Doesn't every exception handler could modify these registers? >>>>>So probably it would be better to put this check into RtlRaiseException? >>>> >>>>Nope can't. __regs_RtlRaiseException is common for all the platforms >>>>(implemented in dlls/ntdll/exception.c). While Dr* registers are not >>>>available on all the platforms. >> >> >>>What about putting some >>>#ifdef __i386__ >>>... >>>#endif >>>around it? >> >> >> That's what signal_*.c are for... > The name suggests it's more about signal handling than a place to throw every > arch > dependent code in it ;) > But that's not the point. > I just thought it might not be the best solution to duplicate that check in > every signal > handler. > Besides what about somebody changes the Dr* registers in an exception handler > invoked by > an exception raised by the application via RaiseException(i.e. not via a > signal handler > called by the kernel)? > *Every* installed exception handler can change the registers in the CONTEXT > structure, > thats why I think it would be the easiest way to implement it in > __regs_RtlRaiseException.
Good point but it needs a test. Besides I'm not sure that we will change any registers in that case at all. (just checked and no, we won't change any registers).
