Thanks, Dave. I was actually going to ask about that since you had mentioned that
/dev/crash should behave correctly in contrast to /dev/mem / /dev/kmem. Does it matter
that my arch is i386 and not x86_64? I'll give this a shot.
-Kevin
________________________________________
From: crash-utility-bounces(a)redhat.com [crash-utility-bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of
Dave Anderson [anderson(a)redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:27 AM
To: Discussion list for crash utility usage,    maintenance and development
Subject: Re: [Crash-utility] "cannot access vmalloc'd module memory" when   
   loading kdump'ed vmcore in crash
Worth, Kevin wrote:
 Thanks for the explanation, Dave.
 I tried adding some printf's to memory.c (before the goto try_dev_kmem, then
 before and after the call to read_dev_kmem). It does in fact look like it's
 taking the read_dev_kmem path... a couple examples (a ton of these are printed,
 so if there is any specific address to look for let me know, but I presume this
 is just confirming what you suspected. 
...
 Yep. Also confirmed using the printf's in previous email.
 crash> help -p
      program_name: crash
      program_path: ./crash
   program_version: 4.0-7.2
       gdb_version: 6.1
 ...
               nfd: -1
               mfd: 4
               kfd: 11 
OK, we're getting nowhere fast because of the limitations of
the /dev/mem driver.
What I've been trying to accomplish is simply this:
   on the live system:
     - find a module address whose "vtop" shows that its physical
       address is greater than 4GB.
     - rd -p <the-physical-address-greater-than-4GB> 100
     - verify that it contains "correct" data, i.e. as seen when
       you do a "p <module-virtual-address>"  (it will...)
   <crash the system>
   on the dumpfile:
     - rd -p <the-physical-address-greater-than-4GB> 100 (same as above)
     - see whether it does -- or does *not* -- contain the "correct" data
       that was seen on the live system
If the same physical address does *not* contain the same data
in the dumpfile as was there in the live system, then we can
point at the kexec/kdump operation.  We have seemingly done
so, but without being able to do it *exactly* as the steps
above because:
-  on the live system, we're relying on /dev/kmem to do the
    virtual-to-physical address translation of vmalloc addresses,
    so the resultant physical address is "hidden" from us.
If your system used the Red Hat /dev/crash driver, then the
steps above would be trivial, because the crash utility does
does the virtual-to-physical address translation of the
vmalloc addresses itself, and then reads memory using the
resultant physical address.
I will attach the crash.c and crash.h files from /dev/crash patch
we use for RHEL5's 2.6.18-based kernel.  What you would need to do
is something like this (having never done it before):
(1) Copy the attached crash.c file to your kernel's "drivers/char"
directory.
(2) Copy the attached crash.h file to your kernel's "include/asm-x86_64"
directory.
(3) Add this to the "drivers/char/Makefile":
+obj-m            += crash.o
(4) since 2.6.20 doesn't have a page_is_ram() function for x86_64,
     you'll have to add this to your arch/x86_64/mm/init.c file,
     and export it so the /dev/crash driver can pick it up:
int page_is_ram (unsigned long pagenr)
{
         int i;
         for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) {
                 unsigned long addr, end;
                 if (e820.map[i].type != E820_RAM)       /* not usable memory */
                         continue;
                 /*
                  * !!!FIXME!!! Some BIOSen report areas as RAM that
                  * are not. Notably the 640->1Mb area. We need a sanity
                  * check here.
                  */
                 addr = (e820.map[i].addr+PAGE_SIZE-1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
                 end = (e820.map[i].addr+e820.map[i].size) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
                 if  ((pagenr >= addr) && (pagenr < end))
                         return 1;
         }
         return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(page_is_ram);
(5) Build the kernel and see what happens...
Other than trying that, I don't have any other suggestions.
Dave