From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JEHkX-0007t9-Op
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:20:41 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JEHkW-0007rh-Lb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:20:41 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEHkW-0007rU-HW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:20:40 -0500
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com>) id 1JEHkW-000254-Af
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:20:40 -0500
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so2876529pyb.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f284c33d0801132120o395d22bbl2d138460d88c3ab4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:20:38 +0700
From: "Mulyadi Santosa" <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Patch] x86 breakpoints and memory examination
In-Reply-To: <478A50F1.4050400@cs.ucla.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <478A50F1.4050400@cs.ucla.edu>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: kohler@cs.ucla.edu

Hi..

> The following patch is useful for whole-system mode debugging and breakpoint
> setting on i386 QEMU.  It seems like both breakpoints and memory examination
> used semi-physical addresses, in that neither took account of segment
> translation.  This patch (relative to 0.9.1) adds segment translation.
>
> I'm not sure this is the right way to do it (in fact, I'm sure that the memory
> examination patch is the WRONG way to do it) and would appreciate pointers or
> advice.

I believe (IIRC) jasson wessel had fixed such problem about a year
ago..but I agree that it seems qemu doesn't take segmentation into
account (zero based segment start address, like most OS does these
days I think). In this case, i think your patch does the right thing.

regards,

Mulyadi.