Use general instruction/stack pointer convenience method instead of manually

finding the instruction/stack pointer for exploitability rating.

There was already a method that found the instruction pointer, so the files
for exploitability ratings had repeated code. Also a method for finding the
stack pointer is implemented in this CL.

R=ivanpe@chromium.org

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1210943005

git-svn-id: http://google-breakpad.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@1468 4c0a9323-5329-0410-9bdc-e9ce6186880e

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 12 deletions

diff --git a/src/processor/exploitability_win.cc b/src/processor/exploitability_win.cc
index 8a444eb2..a1f8703a 100644
--- a/src/processor/exploitability_win.cc
+++ b/src/processor/exploitability_win.cc
@@ -106,18 +106,14 @@ ExploitabilityRating ExploitabilityWin::CheckPlatformExploitability() {
   uint64_t stack_ptr = 0;
   uint64_t instruction_ptr = 0;
 
-  switch (context->GetContextCPU()) {
-    case MD_CONTEXT_X86:
-      stack_ptr = context->GetContextX86()->esp;
-      instruction_ptr = context->GetContextX86()->eip;
-      break;
-    case MD_CONTEXT_AMD64:
-      stack_ptr = context->GetContextAMD64()->rsp;
-      instruction_ptr = context->GetContextAMD64()->rip;
-      break;
-    default:
-      BPLOG(INFO) << "Unsupported architecture.";
-      return EXPLOITABILITY_ERR_PROCESSING;
+  // Getting the instruction pointer.
+  if (!context->GetInstructionPointer(&instruction_ptr)) {
+    return EXPLOITABILITY_ERR_PROCESSING;
+  }
+
+  // Getting the stack pointer.
+  if (!context->GetStackPointer(&stack_ptr)) {
+    return EXPLOITABILITY_ERR_PROCESSING;
   }
 
   // Check if we are executing on the stack.