On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:08:11 +0200, Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, Keith Owens wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:28:18 +0200, >> Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >What is the kdb equivalent of access_ok()? >> >> kdb_getarea() and kdb_getarea_size(), you would normally use >> kdb_getarea(). It uses __copy_to_user_inatomic() to catch invalid >> addresses and recover. > >I was hoping for a generic function that checks wether a given memory >range is valid. > >In my case, it should have checked sizeof(struct task_struct) at addr >before calling kdba_bt_address().
There is kdba_verify_rw(), I can always add a kdba_verify_r() function as well. >I will add such a check to kdba_bt_stack_ppc now. How do other archs >deal with 'bt 72' (which should have been 'btp 72')? ia64 does not allow bt <address>, because of the strange ia64 unwind data. Other architectures such as i386 and x86_64 just use the address, if it is invalid then you get an oops, kdb recovers from the oops and continues. --------------------------- Use http://oss.sgi.com/ecartis to modify your settings or to unsubscribe.
