Description of problem: I was connected to the opencd server via telnet to por 4444 and I issued the command: > peek 0x0 Version-Release number of selected component: openocd-0.7.0-3.fc20 Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.1.12 backtrace_rating: 4 cmdline: openocd -s /usr/share/openocd/scripts -f ../daemon.cfg -f interface/olimex-arm-usb-ocd-h.cfg -f board/olimex_stm32_h103.cfg crash_function: ioutil_Jim_Command_peek executable: /usr/bin/openocd kernel: 3.12.9-301.fc20.x86_64 runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 1000 Truncated backtrace: Thread no. 1 (10 frames) #0 ioutil_Jim_Command_peek at ioutil.c:421 #1 JimInvokeCommand at jim.c:10074 #2 Jim_EvalObj at jim.c:10519 #3 Jim_EvalSource at jim.c:10838 #4 command_run_line at command.c:659 #5 telnet_input at telnet_server.c:391 #6 server_loop at server.c:465 #7 openocd_thread at openocd.c:295 #8 openocd_main at openocd.c:328 #10 _start
Created attachment 859374 [details] File: backtrace
Created attachment 859375 [details] File: cgroup
Created attachment 859376 [details] File: core_backtrace
Created attachment 859377 [details] File: dso_list
Created attachment 859378 [details] File: environ
Created attachment 859379 [details] File: exploitable
Created attachment 859380 [details] File: limits
Created attachment 859381 [details] File: maps
Created attachment 859382 [details] File: open_fds
Created attachment 859383 [details] File: proc_pid_status
Created attachment 859384 [details] File: var_log_messages
Hi Josep, I'm not that familiar with openocd, so take my comment with a grain of salt. 'peek' reads from the memory address given by the first parameter. It reads the memory of the machine openocd is running (that's your PC). It doesn't read the memory of the debugged device. So 'peek 0x0' will read/dereference a null pointer, which will cause your x64-cpu to emit a segmentation fault. That's by design! I'm closing this as 'not a bug', but if you disagree fell free to reopen it. regards Markus
Hi Markus, I didn't know peek looked at the memory on the machine where openocd was running, that seems an odd feature, but why not... Closing seems the right thing to do, thanks anyway.