RE: [Crash-utility] modules and data / bss initialization

The warning message here is a little strange. The symbol matches as being in the 'bss', but appears to be being located outside the bss segment. Once I think I've identified a segment, I try to skip over the rest of it. There's an assumption (and I probably should have written an assertion) that symbols we scan over starting at mod_symtable are monotonically increasing. Is that not true? The clipping on the longs is annoying. I tend to rely on gcc catching those for me. Thanks for the testing! -----Original Message----- From: crash-utility-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:crash-utility-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Dave Anderson Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development Subject: Re: [Crash-utility] modules and data / bss initialization Castor Fu wrote: I don't think this made it out earlier...Here's a fix. I've also added something so 'MODULES_IN_CWD' will work on 2.6since modules will end with .koI hope this looks good to others.... Hi Castor, Upon quick testing with RHEL4 and RHEL5 x86_64 kernels, this patch certainly looks promising... Although I don't particularly care to see these messages: ffffffff8810ae80 serio_raw 41157 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/input/serio/serio_raw.ko ffffffff8811b580 uhci_hcd 59353 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/usb/host/uhci-hcd.ko ffffffff88130b00 shpchp 73069 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/pci/hotplug/shpchp.ko unexpected sym __key.10825 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000 XXX sym __key.10825 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0 section .bss unexpected sym __key.10826 8814a180 sec .bss offset e180 mod_base 8813c000 XXX sym __key.10826 @ 8814a180 bfd val 0 section .bss ffffffff88141f80 i2c_core 57793 /lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2747.el5/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.ko I would think they could be CRASHDEBUG(1)'d, couldn't they? Plus, those error messages will clip 64-bit values as shown above. I'm also presuming that the new add-symbol-file operation will harmlessly take a "0" mod_data_start, mod_rodata_start or mod_bss_start address argument; seemingly it does, since several of my test modules have 0 as one or more of those start addresses. Anyway, I also would be interested in the experiences of others on the list who are using different architectures and kernel versions. Thanks, Dave