Re: [Crash-utility] Patch to fix Seg Violation in parse_for_member

What about replacing that fprintf() with fprintf(pc->saved_fp, "%s", buf) or even fputs(buf, pc->saved_fp)?

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 16:23 -0600, Bob Montgomery wrote: >> > If you change the >> > fprintf(pc->saved_fp, buf); >> > lines to >> > print_verbatim(pc->saved_fp, buf); >> > >> > Then I won't get: >> > >> > crash> sk_buff.head ffff88012014dc80 >> > Segmentation fault >> > >> > When I need to get: >> > >> > crash> sk_buff.head ffff88012014dc80 >> > head = 0xffff880121267000 "\"%s %s %s\", got type \"%s\"" >> > >> > >> > Patch attached (6.0.8). >> > >> > I suspect performance will suffer a bit when I try to print >> > 2 million of these... >> >> Wonder if it would be quicker on average to string search for "%" >> and >> conditionally call print_verbatim??? I had lots of successful >> fprintf's and only a small number of seg viol cases. >> >> Bob M. > > Hi Bob, > > Although in practice, > > (1) parse_for_member() is rarely called "in quantity", and > (2) when it is called, it would only encounter this with "char *" > members, and > (3) the string would also have to have a '%' in it. > > On the other hand, if you test the two print-types with a million > calls, > there's a significant performance hit. But if a strstr() is done > first > on the string, there's virtually no hit at all if there's no '%' in > it. > > So yes, I agree with you that the string-search/conditional call > should be done. > I'll add that to your patch, and queue it for crash-6.0.9. > > Thanks, > Dave > > -- > Crash-utility mailing list > Crash-utility(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility