Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:05:03 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [RESEND][mmotm][PATCH v2, 0/5] elf coredump: Add extended numbering support | From | Daisuke HATAYAMA <> |
| |
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RESEND][mmotm][PATCH v2, 0/5] elf coredump: Add extended numbering support Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:24:18 -0800
> 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? >
My concern is possibility of dump_seek()'s very short and general naming wasting public name space and colliding other global names. My idea is, for example, to rename it coredump_dump_seek().
Please ignore remaining part of the previous explanation. As you mention, current dump_seek() implementation is no problem. When it will be needed is one of implementations of some object file format will fork.
| |