[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aec7e5c30611092253q6bd15701x1f5da122de5c7075@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:53:57 +0900
From: "Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "Magnus Damm" <magnus@...inux.co.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...ibm.com>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@....de>,
fastboot@...ts.osdl.org, Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"Dave Anderson" <anderson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/02] Elf: Align elf notes properly
On 11/10/06, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> "Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@...il.com> writes:
>
> > I'm not sure you see all my points. The important parts are the
> > offsets - offset 0 and offset N2 in the description above. The should
> > be aligned somehow. Exactly how to align them depends on if the 64-bit
> > spec is valid or not.
> >
> > My points are:
> >
> > - Some kdump code rounds up the size of "elf note header" today. This
> > is unneccessary for 32 bit alignment and plain wrong for 64 bit
> > alignment. So I think that the code is strange and should be changed
> > regardless if the 64-bit spec is valid or not.
>
> Sure that is reasonable, if correct.
>
> > - Many implementations incorrectly calculate N2 as: roundup(sizeof(elf
> > note header)) + roundup(n_namesz).
>
> I am not certain that is incorrect. roundup(sizeof(elf note header), 4) +
> roundup(n_namesize, 4) will yield something that is properly 4 byte aligned.
> I do agree that implementation is not correct for 8 byte alignment. 8 byte
> alignment does not appear to be in widespread use in the wild.
You are correct that it only matters if we are interested in 8 byte
alignment. So it should be a non-issue for the 4-byte aligment case.
> > - You say that the size of the notes do not vary and therefore this is
> > a non-issue. I agree that the size does not vary, but I believe that
> > the aligment _is_ an issue. One example is the N2 calculation above,
> > but more importantly the vmcore code that merges the elf note sections
> > into one. You know, if you have more than one cpu you will end up with
> > more than one crash note. And if you run Xen you will have even more
> > crash notes.
>
> Sure that is clearly an issue.
>
> > - On top of this I think it would be nice if all this code could be
> > unified to avoid code duplication. But we need to straighten out this
> > and agree on how the aligment should work before the code can be
> > merged into one implementation.
>
> Sure.
>
> To verify your claim that 8 byte alignment is correct I checked the
> core dump code in fs/binfmt_elf.c in the linux kernel. That always
> uses 4 byte alignment. Therefore it appears clear that only doing
> 4 byte alignment is not a local misreading of the spec, and is used in
> other implementations. If you can find an implementation that uses
> 8 byte alignment I am willing to consider it.
Yes, fs/binfmt_elf.c is one of the files that my patch modifies. There
are several elf note implementations in the kernel, all seem to use
4-byte aligment.
Implementations that use 8-byte alignment:
binutils-2.16.1/bfd/elf.c: elf_core_write_note() is using
log_file_align which is set to 3 on some 64-bit platforms. 8-byte
alignment in some cases.
binutils-2.16.1/binutils/readelf.c: process_corefile_note_segment() is
always using 4-byte alignment though.
> The current situation is that the linux kernel generated application
> core dumps use 4 byte alignment so I expect that is what existing
> applications such as gdb expect.
Most applications probably expect 4-byte aligned data. OTOH, I just
came across HP's ELF-64 Object File Format document. It says that
8-byte alignment should be used:
http://devresource.hp.com/drc/STK/docs/refs/elf-64-hp.pdf
So now we have two documents that say 8-byte alignment should be used.
> Therefore we use 4 byte alignment unless it can be shown that the
> linux core dumps are a fluke and should be fixed.
Ok. Vivek, Dave, anyone? Comments?
/ magnus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists