RE: modules and data / bss initialization

["Castor Fu" <castor.fu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:crash-utility-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]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: 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
 
 
 
 
 
 

--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility