In message <957BD1C2BF3CD411B6C500A0C944CA2601F11711@pdsmsx32.pd.intel.com> you
write:
> Hi, Rusty
> There is a example that could explain why I want the module structure's
> pointer.
> If we want to place kernel probes on all PIO instrcutions of a
> device driver for debuging purpose, only knowing symbol's address is
> not enough. We need the base address of .text section. How do you
> think about this example ?
I don't know where the .text section is anymore, once the module is
loaded. And just the .text section might not be enough on some archs.
I think it would be cleaner to have a userspace program which parses
the module, figures out how it is laid out in memory (this will be
arch specific!) and then (using the base address from /proc/modules)
tells the kernel "insert a probe at address 0xc1234567". This should
be far more flexible, I think.
Thoughts?
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:20 EST