On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:50:41AM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: > From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm at xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/21] vmcore: reference e_phoff member explicitly to get position of program header table > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:44:16 -0700 > > > HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> writes: > > > >> Currently, the code assumes that position of program header table is > >> next to ELF header. But future change can break the assumption on > >> kexec-tools and the 1st kernel. To avoid worst case, reference e_phoff > >> member explicitly to get position of program header table in > >> file-offset. > > > > In principle this looks good. However when I read this it looks like > > you are going a little too far. > > > > You are changing not only the reading of the supplied headers, but > > you are changing the generation of the new new headers that describe > > the data provided by /proc/vmcore. > > > > I get lost in following this after you mangle merge_note_headers. > > > > In principle removing silly assumptions seems reasonable, but I think > > it is completely orthogonal to the task of maping vmcore mmapable. > > > > I think it is fine to claim that the assumptions made here in vmcore are > > part of the kexec on panic ABI at this point, which would generally make > > this change unnecessary. > > This was suggested by Vivek. He prefers generic one. > > Vivek, do you agree to this? Or is it better to re-post this and other > clean-up patches as another one separately to this patch set? Given the fact that current code has been working, I am fine to just re-post and take care of mmap() related issues. And we can take care of cleaning up of some assumptions about PT_NOTE headers later. Trying to club large cleanup with mmap() patches is making it hard to review. Thanks Vivek
