From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: Tao Ma <tao.ma@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch BUGFIX] kcore: fix its wrong size on x86_64
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:41:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1prd2rtdf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090618044055.GB6133@cr0.nay.redhat.com> (Amerigo Wang's message of "Thu\, 18 Jun 2009 12\:40\:55 +0800")
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:37:40PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> I think a case can be made either way. In practice neither answer
>>>>>> gives us a dense offset space on x86_64 so I think I prefer the
>>>>>> current definition which sets or clears the high bits as opposed
>>>>>> to something that mangles the address more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to dig more... There must be something wrong there.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>> See what you will get for kc_vaddr_to_offset(__va(0))?
>>> It is supposed to be 0.
>>
>>I see: 0x0000880000001000 That extra 0x1000 looks suspicous.
>
>
> huh? 0x0000880000000000 not?
>
>>
>>It MUST NOT be 0. That is where the ELF header lives in the file.
>
> Of course I knew this.
>
> Just read the code:
>
> phdr->p_offset = kc_vaddr_to_offset(m->addr) + dataoff;
>
> So it should be 0, 'dataoff' is there...
Sorry. The naming then is horrible. It is really
kc_vaddr_to_something_like_the_offset.
I still don't see the need for a flat offset space.
I can see a real point of only having a single kc_vaddr_to_offset
function. Instead of the 3 in existence.
No point in cluttering the whole world with the oddities of the kcore
code. Especially when it should get cleaned up.
My real point earlier is that kc_vaddr_to_offset and
kc_offset_to_vaddr actually on x86_64 aren't broken. They are just
peculiar. There is some small point to their oddities, in that if
something is in the upper half of the address space (like xen) but
below PAGE_OFFSET you have a chance of accessing it with /proc/kcore.
But that is a very minor benefit.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-18 5:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-05 4:03 /proc/kcore has a unreasonable size(281474974617600) in x86_64 2.6.30-rc8 Tao Ma
2009-06-05 5:38 ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-05 6:59 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 7:56 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 8:57 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 9:09 ` Américo Wang
2009-06-05 9:14 ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-05 9:30 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 9:51 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 14:26 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 17:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 14:37 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-06 22:21 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-08 1:52 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-08 6:02 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-08 6:41 ` Américo Wang
2009-06-08 8:00 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-09 0:43 ` Américo Wang
2009-06-09 4:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-11 5:09 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-11 14:12 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-12 7:54 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-13 4:09 ` [Patch BUGFIX] kcore: fix its wrong size on x86_64 Amerigo Wang
2009-06-13 4:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 2:14 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-15 5:59 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-15 7:00 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-15 8:34 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-15 9:00 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-15 10:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 22:10 ` TaoMa
2009-06-15 19:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 17:01 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-15 10:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-16 15:29 ` Américo Wang
2009-06-16 19:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 3:00 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-18 3:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 4:40 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-18 5:41 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2009-06-22 8:54 ` [Patch] kcore: remove its pointless size Amerigo Wang
2009-06-30 10:08 ` [RESEND Patch] " Amerigo Wang
2009-07-01 21:47 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-01 23:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-07-02 0:12 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-02 0:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-17 22:29 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-21 2:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 8:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 9:36 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] kcore: clean up and update ram information properly KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 9:38 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] kcore: use usual list ops in kclist KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 9:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] kcore: add kclist type information KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 9:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] kcore: rebuild RAM information based on io resource information KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-21 11:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] kcore: clean up and update ram information properly Andi Kleen
2009-07-22 0:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-02 9:28 ` [RESEND Patch] kcore: remove its pointless size Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 5:49 ` /proc/kcore has a unreasonable size(281474974617600) in x86_64 2.6.30-rc8 Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 6:07 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 6:43 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 6:56 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 8:00 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-06-05 9:01 ` Tao Ma
2009-06-05 9:20 ` Amerigo Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m1prd2rtdf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tao.ma@oracle.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox