On 30/08/2021 14:27, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 8/30/2021 00:42, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Kinsey,
why can't you use the existing fatal error extension for this? You
just have to test for an RTEMS_FATAL_SOURCE_EXTENSION source. The
fatal code is a pointer to the exception frame.
Unfortunately, the fatal error extensions framework necessarily assumes
that the exception is fatal and so does not include the machinery to
perform a thread dispatch or restore the exception frame for additional
execution. It could theoretically be done in the fatal error extensions
context, but it would end up being reimplemented for every architecture
and you'd have to unwind the stack manually. I'm sure there are other
ragged edges that would have to be smoothed over as well.
Non-interrupt exceptions are not uniformly handled across architectures
in RTEMS currently. Adding the RTEMS_FATAL_SOURCE_EXTENSION fatal source
was an attempt to do this. I am not that fond of adding a second
approach unless there are strong technical reasons to do this.
The initial fatal extensions are quite robust, you only need a stack,
valid read-only data and a valid code. So, using a user extension is the
right thing to do, but I don't thing we need a new one.
Doing the non-interrupt exception processing on the stack which caused
the exception is a bit problematic, since the stack pointer might be
corrupt as well. It is more robust to switch to for example the
interrupt stack. If the exception was caused by an interrupt, then this
exception is not recoverable.
If the non-interrupt exception was caused by a thread, then you could do
some high level actions for some exceptions, such as floating-point
exceptions and arithmetic exceptions. If you get a data abort or
instruction error, then it is probably better to terminate the system.
Non-interrupt exception handling is always architecture-dependent. It is
just a matter how you organize it. In general, the most sensible way to
deal with non-interrupt exceptions is to log the error somehow and
terminate the system. The mapping to signals is a bit of a special case
if you ask me. My preferred way to handle non-interrupt exceptions would
be to
1. switch to a dedicated stack
2. save the complete register set to the CPU exception frame
3. call the fatal error extensions with RTEMS_FATAL_SOURCE_EXTENSION and
the CPU exception frame (with interrupts disabled)
Add a new API to query/alter the CPU exception frame, switch to the
stack indicated by the CPU exception frame, and restore the context
stored in the CPU exception frame. With these architecture-dependent CPU
exception frame support it should be possible to implement a high level
mapper to signals.
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
