On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:27:28PM -0500, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> 0xc023b428 <serial_in+24>: je 0xc023b461 <serial_in+81>
> 0xc023b42a <serial_in+26>: cmp $0x2,%eax
> 0xc023b42d <serial_in+29>: je 0xc023b440 <serial_in+48>
> 0xc023b42f <serial_in+31>: mov 0x8(%ebx),%eax
> 0xc023b432 <serial_in+34>: add %eax,%edx
> 0xc023b434 <serial_in+36>: in (%dx),%al
>
> eax: 00000000 ebx: 81acc5f0 ecx: 00000000 edx: 00000005
>
> ...
> default:
> return inb(up->port.iobase + offset); <--
> }
Ok, if I'm reading this correctly:
offset = %edx
up->port.iobase = 0x8(%ebx)
up = %ebx
To get to this return statement, we would have had to execute:
static _INLINE_ unsigned int serial_in(struct uart_8250_port *up, int offset)
{
offset <<= up->port.regshift;
switch (up->port.iotype) {
which also dereferences "up". So something may have corrupted %ebx
between executing that switch statement and executing the inb().
Could the NMI handler be corrupting %ebx ?
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:37 EST