Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Aaron Passey) | Subject | Re: Linux Kernel Debuggers, KDB or KGDB? | Date | 1 May 2001 07:13:17 GMT |
| |
On Tue, 01 May 2001 11:16:50 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> wrote: >kgdb relies on gdb so you loose the knowledge of kernel internals (no, >I am *not* going to teach gdb about kernel stacks, out of line lock >code etc.). kgdb has more of a dependency on a working kernel. It >provides source level debugging, although stack backtrace tends not to >work unless you compile the kernel with frame pointers. > >UML is great for debugging generic kernel code such as filesystems, but >cannot be used for most arch code or hardware drivers. > >My ideal debugger is one that combines the internal knowledge of kdb >with the source level debugging of gdb. I know how to do this over a >serial line, finding time to write the code is the problem.
I've been thinking about this a little bit and I suspect the right thing may be to combine a kgdb style debuging stub with the Mission Critical Linux crash code (http://oss.missioncriticallinux.com/projects/crash/). Crash is based around gdb and adds the ability to easily examine the process table, memory maps, kernel logs, wait queues, timers, etc. Crash already is able to examine a live system by reading /dev/mem. The only thing you'd need to add is the ability to attach to a live system over a serial port (probably not too hard since gdb already knows how to do that).
Aaron - 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/
|  |