----- Original Message ----- > (2013/10/07 22:21), Dave Anderson wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> (2013/10/03 22:47), Dave Anderson wrote: > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> (2013/10/02 18:13), HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: > >>>>> (2013/10/02 16:48), Kees Cook wrote: > > >> > >> Thanks for detailed explanation. So, there's already a feature in crash > >> utility > >> to address relocation!, though it's better for me to try them to check if > >> it's > >> really applicable to this feature. My concern is whether --reloc works > >> well > >> on x86_64 too, because relocation has never done on x86_64 ever, right? > > > > Correct. > > > >> Another concern is that in case of relocation, users need to additional information > >> regarding runtime symbol information to crash utility. I want to avoid additional > >> process, automation is preferable if possible. > > > > Right. As I mentioned in the case of 32-bit x86 dumpfiles, there is no automation > > available when CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START is larger than CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN. The user > > either has to be aware of their values in order to calculate the --reloc argument, > > or has to capture a copy of the /proc/kallsyms file on the crashed system. Typically > > users/distros using kdump changed their x86 configurations to avoid having to deal > > with that. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand why relocation size cannot be calculated when > CONFIG_PHYSICALSTART > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN. Could you explain that? I just meant that when CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN, the 32-bit x86 kernel gets relocated (like the secondary kdump kernel), but that information is not readily available from the vmlinux/vmcore pair. > > >> I guess it's enough if there's runtime symbol addresses because we can get relocated > >> offset value by comparing it with the compile-time symbol address contained in > >> a given debuginfo file. Candidates for such symbols are the ones contained in > >> VMCOREINFO note containing some symbol values for makedumpfile to refer to mm-related > >> objects in kernel, which is always contained in vmcore generated by current kdump and > >> also vmcores converted by makedumpfile from it. How about this idea? > > > > But how would that differ from using an incorrect (non-matching) vmlinux file? > > > > It seems to me almost similar to what crash currently does even if we do relocation check. > The current check crash currently does is trial-and-error since there's no information > indicating given vmcore and vmlinuxcertainly match well. > > For example, the process I imagine is: > > 1) try to match vmcore and vmlinux with no relocation. If fails, go to 2). > 2) try to match vmcore and vmlinux with relocation. > > The two steps include symbol table initialization so it might actually be difficult to > resume back from 2) to 1). > > Also, if gap due to phys_base and gap due to relocation can happen at the same time, > calculating two values automatically might be futher complicated. So, it would be better > to add relocation value in VMCOREINFO. Then, what crash utility sholud do becomes very simple. Yes please... And while you're at it, the kernel's VMCOREINFO_SYMBOL(phys_base); is pretty much useless, at least w/respect to ELF vmcores, since we need to know its value in order to translate the address. And I don't think that makedumpfile uses it when it calculates the phys_base that it stores in compressed kdump headers. Why not put its value instead of its address? > BTW, can it really happen that gaps due to phys_base and due to relocation happen at the > same time? I feel relocation covers phys_base mechanism. If there's relocation, phys_base > is not necessary. > > -- > Thanks. > HATAYAMA, Daisuke > > -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
