Hi Mahesh, On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:46:02 +0530 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > @@ -4647,6 +4650,15 @@ write_cache_bufsz(struct cache_data *cd) > } > > int > +write_cache_zero(struct cache_data *cd, size_t size) > +{ > + memset(cd->buf + cd->buf_size, 0, size); > + cd->buf_size += size; > + > + return write_cache_bufsz(cd); > +} if cd->buf_size is a little smaller than cd->cache_size and the argument "size" is bigger than info->page_size, the above a SIGSEGV happens at the above memset(). Previous write_cache_bufsze() call will avoid that : --- int write_cache_zero(struct cache_data *cd, size_t size) { + if (!write_cache_bufsz(cd)) + return FALSE; memset(cd->buf + cd->buf_size, 0, size); cd->buf_size += size; return write_cache_bufsz(cd); } --- > /* > + * ELF note section for erase information > + * > + * According to elf.h the unused values are 0x15(21) through 0xff. The value > + * range 0x1XX, 0x2XX and 0x3XX is been used for PPC, i386 and s390 > + * respectively. > + * > + * Using 0xff to be on safer side so that any new Elf Note addition in elf.h > + * after 0x15 value would not clash. > + */ > +#ifndef NT_ERASE_INFO > +#define NT_ERASE_INFO (0xff) /* Contains erased information. */ > +#endif > +#define ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME "ERASEINFO" > +#define ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME_BYTES (sizeof(ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME)) I feel NT_ERASE_INFO(0xff) is not safe and we can use ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME instead. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi