Re: [RESEND][mmotm][PATCH v2, 0/5] elf coredump: Add extended numbering support

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:12:32 +0900 (JST) Daisuke HATAYAMA <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [RESEND][mmotm][PATCH v2, 0/5] elf coredump: Add extended numbering support
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:29:28 -0800
> 
> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:06:07 +0900 (JST)
> > Daisuke HATAYAMA <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The current ELF dumper can produce broken corefiles if program headers
> > > exceed 65535. In particular, the program in 64-bit environment often
> > > demands more than 65535 mmaps. If you google max_map_count, then you
> > > can find many users facing this problem.
> > > 
> > > Solaris has already dealt with this issue, and other OSes have also
> > > adopted the same method as in Solaris. Currently, Sun's document and
> > > AMD 64 ABI include the description for the extension, where they call
> > > the extension Extended Numbering. See Reference for further information.
> > > 
> > > I believe that linux kernel should adopt the same way as they did, so
> > > I've written this patch.
> > > 
> > > I am also preparing for patches of GDB and binutils.
> > 
> > That's a beautifully presented patchset.  Thanks for doing all that
> > work - it helps.
> > 
> > UML maintenance appears to have ceased in recent times, so if we wish
> > to have these changes runtime tested (we should) then I think it would
> > be best if you could find someone to do that please.
> > 
> > And no akpm code-review would be complete without: dump_seek() is
> > waaaay to large to be inlined.  Is there some common .c file to where
> > we could move it?
> > 
> 
> I am sorry for very late reply.
> 
> * Patch Test for UML-i386
> 
> I tested on UML-i386 for the stable release of that time, precisely
> 2.6.32, since even building process for UML-i386 failed for mainline
> and mmotm trees, as you've expected.
> 
> I don't know internal UML implementation at all, so I need to find
> someone if runtime test for mmotm tree is absolutely necessary.

OK, thanks.

> * modification for dump_seek()
> 
> I couldn't find any right .c file at which dump_seek() be placed. We
> need to create a new .c file into which we put auxiliary functions to
> generate/manipulate coredumps.

Sure, that sounds appropriate.

> There is another problem regarding name space. The name dump_seek() is
> too short.  If we move dump_seek() to some .c file, we need to rename
> it according to the corresponding object file format, such as
> elf_core_dump_seek() or aout_dump_seek(); or coredump_dump_seek(), as
> currently dump_seek() is shared among dumping processes in multiple
> object formats.

I don't understand.  Your current inlined dump_seek() looks like it
will work OK for all dump formats when uninlined?