From: Roel Kluin roel.kl...@gmail.com
Prevent write to put_buf[BUFMAX] in kgdb test suite.
If put_buf_cnt was BUFMAX - 1 at the earlier test,
`\0' is written to put_buf[BUFMAX].
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin roel.kl...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel jason.wes...@windriver.com
---
It is possible for the user_mode_vm(regs) check to return true on the
i368 arch for a non master kgdb cpu or when the master kgdb cpu
handles the NMI watch dog exception.
The solution is simply to select the correct gdb_ss location
based on the check to user_mode_vm(regs).
CC: Ingo Molnar
Linus, please pull the kgdb git tree for 2.6.33
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jwessel/linux-2.6-kgdb.git
for_linus
Summary:
The patches in this series have been in linux-next and thoroughly
tested over the last two kernel cycles. There are no new features
here, everything
On some architectures for the segv trap, gdb wants to pass the signal
back on continue. For kgdb this is not the default behavior, because
it can cause the kernel to crash if you arbitrarily pass back a
exception outside of kgdb.
Instead of causing instability, pass a message back to gdb about
The kgdb core should not assume that a single step operation of a
kernel thread will complete on the same CPU. The single step flag is
set at the thread level and it is possible in a multi cpu system
that a kernel thread can get scheduled on another cpu the next time it
is run.
As a further
From: Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org
Some versions of gcc replace calls to strstr() with single-character
needle string parameters by calls to strchr() behind our back.
This causes linking errors if strchr() is defined as an inline function
in asm/string.h (e.g. on m68k, which BTW
On an SMP system the kgdb_single_step flag has the possibility to
indefinitely hang the system in the case. Consider the case where,
CPU 1 has the schedule lock and CPU 0 is set to single step, there is
no way for CPU 0 to run another task.
The easy way to observe the problem is to make 2 cpus
From: Roel Kluin roel.kl...@gmail.com
The for loop starts with a breakno of 0, and ends when it's 4. so
this test is always true.
CC: Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin roel.kl...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel
