Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:18 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:51 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 19:21 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>>> plain text document attachment (enhance-kernel-fault-report.patch) >>>>>> Introduce xnarch_fault_um() to test if a fault happened in user-mode and >>>>>> applies the new feature to report core and driver crashes more >>>>>> verbosely. >>>>>> if (xnpod_shadow_p()) { >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_XENO_OPT_DEBUG >>>>>> - if (xnarch_fault_notify(fltinfo)) /* Don't report >>>>>> debug traps */ >>>>>> + if (!xnarch_fault_um(fltinfo)) { >>>>>> + xnarch_trace_panic_freeze(); >>>>> KGDB breakpoint issue? >>>> Sorry, please switch on verbose mode, didn't get yet what you mean. >>> Oops, sorry. I meant: what if a KGDB breakpoint is hit from kernel space >>> while running a shadow thread? The way I read the modified test sequence >>> above, such bp trap is going to trigger a panic, instead of being >>> silently passed to Linux. >> I would say: KGDB will not come along here with a breakpoint. It should >> already got involved in __ipipe_divert_exception(). > > Ok, so the only problem that remains would be inlined asm("int 1/3") in > kernel space not handled by KGDB (whether the KGDB patch is in or not). > I'm still scratching my head pondering if we can live with this or not.
But this is perfectly one of the situations my patch tries to catch: a fatal bug in the kernel! Such a hand-coded kernel breakpoint without a debugger caring is a bug to me. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core