On 15 March 2014 02:48, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > Since the kernel doesn't pass any info on the reason for the fault, > disassemble the instruction to detect a store.
Incidentally, I've been wondering if we could improve handle_cpu_signal so that at least the "check if this fault was because we write-protected a page when we translated code out of it" part doesn't depend on the CPU-specific signal handler setting is_write correctly. I think most guests don't depend on getting exactly correct fault information, but if we don't track our own page protection correctly then even simple guest binaries don't work. (Also, shouldn't we ideally speaking see if the SIGSEGV was the result of attempting to execute from non-executable memory?) thanks -- PMM
