[Crash-utility] modules and data / bss initialization

[Castor Fu]

The warning message here is a little strange.
The symbol  matches as being in the 'bss', but appears to be
being located outside the bss segment.
 
Once I think I've identified a segment, I try to skip over the 
rest of it.  There's an assumption (and I probably should have 
written an assertion) that symbols we scan over starting at mod_symtable
are monotonically increasing.   Is that not true?  
 
The clipping on the longs is annoying.   I tend to rely on gcc catching
those for me.  
 
Thanks for the testing!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: crash-utility-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:crash-utility-bounces at redhat.com]On Behalf Of Dave Anderson
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development
Subject: Re: [Crash-utility] modules and data / bss initialization



Castor Fu wrote: 

 I don't think this made it out earlier...Here's a fix.  I've also added something so 'MODULES_IN_CWD' will work on 2.6since modules will end with .koI hope this looks good to others....


Hi Castor, 


Upon quick testing with RHEL4 and RHEL5 x86_64 kernels, 
this patch certainly looks promising... 


Although I don't particularly care to see these messages: 


ffffffff8810ae80  serio_raw         41157  /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/input/serio/serio_raw.ko 
ffffffff8811b580  uhci_hcd          59353  /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.ko 
ffffffff88130b00  shpchp            73069  /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/pci/hotplug/shpchp.ko 
unexpected sym __key.10825 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000 
XXX sym __key.10825 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0  section .bss 
unexpected sym __key.10826 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000 
XXX sym __key.10826 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0  section .bss 
ffffffff88141f80  i2c_core          57793  /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.ko 


I would think they could be CRASHDEBUG(1)'d, couldn't they? 
Plus, those error messages will clip 64-bit values as shown 
above. 


I'm also presuming that the new add-symbol-file operation will 
harmlessly take a "0" mod_data_start, mod_rodata_start or 
mod_bss_start address argument; seemingly it does, since several 
of my test modules have 0 as one or more of those start addresses. 


Anyway, I also would be interested in the experiences of others 
on the list who are using different architectures and kernel 
versions. 


Thanks, 
  Dave 
  
  
  
  
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/crash-utility/attachments/20061201/10369a92/attachment.htm>