On 8/3/21 9:54 AM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
/* ??? On linux, the non-rt signal handler has 4 (!) arguments instead
- of the normal 2 arguments. The 3rd argument contains the "int_code"
- from the hardware which does in fact contain the is_write value.
+ of the normal 2 arguments. The 4th argument contains the "Translation-
+ Exception Identification for DAT Exceptions" from the hardware (aka
+ "int_parm_long"), which does in fact contain the is_write value.
The rt signal handler, as far as I can tell, does not give this value
- at all. Not that we could get to it from here even if it were. */
- /* ??? This is not even close to complete, since it ignores all
- of the read-modify-write instructions. */
+ at all. Not that we could get to it from here even if it were.
+ So fall back to parsing instructions. Treat read-modify-write ones as
+ writes, which is not fully correct, but for tracking self-modifying code
+ this is better than treating them as reads. Checking si_addr page flags
+ might be a viable improvement, albeit a racy one. */
+ /* ??? This is not even close to complete. */
You should have gotten a checkpatch warning here.
Just convert the comment to
/*
* this style
*/
pinsn = (uint16_t *)pc;
switch (pinsn[0] >> 8) {
case 0x50: /* ST */
case 0x42: /* STC */
case 0x40: /* STH */
+ case 0xba: /* CS */
+ case 0xbb: /* CDS */
+ case 0xc8: /* CSST */
CSST is format SSF; you're not checking enough bits to distinguish from LOAD
PAIR DISJOINT.
Otherwise, looks good.
r~
