[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A4C0C91.2010407@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:25:37 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: o32 application running on 64bit kernel core dump
David Daney wrote:
> Yong Zhang wrote:
>> If an o32 application crashes and generates a core dump on
>> a 64 bit kernel, the core file will not be correctly
>> recognized. This is because ELF_CORE_COPY_REGS and
>> ELF_CORE_COPY_TASK_REGS are not correctly defined for o32
>> and will use the default register set which would
>> be CONFIG_64BIT in asm/elf.h.
>>
>> So we'll switch to use the right register defines in
>> this situation by checking for WANT_COMPAT_REG_H and
>> use the right defines of ELF_CORE_COPY_REGS and
>> ELF_CORE_COPY_TASK_REGS.
>
> This patch looks plausible. How was it tested?
>
> Can you still obtain good core files with at 32-bit kernel?
Yeah, I also have tested 32-bit kernel. Actually this doesn't have any
side effect on that.
>
> Are usable core files obtained for all three ABIs on 64-bit kernels?
Tested for all three ABIs, and all does the right thing.
Testing code is below:
/* test.c */
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <strings.h>
#include <execinfo.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <linux/unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define MAX_THREADS 4
void foo7()
{
int *i=0;
char c =*i;
}
void foo6()
{
int c6=1000;
int i=9;
while(c6--)
{
i=i*9+1;
}
printf("inside foo6\n");
foo7();
}
void foo5()
{
int c5=1000;
int i=9;
while(c5--)
{
i=i*9+1;
}
printf("inside foo5\n");
foo6();
}
void foo4()
{
int c4=1000;
int i=9;
while(c4--)
{
i=i*9+1;
}
printf("inside foo4\n");
foo5();
}
void foo3()
{
int c3=1000;
int i=9;
while(c3--)
{
i=i*9+1;
}
printf("inside foo3\n");
foo4();
}
void foo2()
{
int c2=1000;
int i=9;
while (c2--)
{
i=i*9+1;
}
printf("inside foo2\n");
foo3();
}
void *foo1(void* arg)
{
sleep(10);
foo2();
}
int main()
{
int i=0;
pthread_t *threads;
pthread_attr_t pthread_attr;
printf("inside main\n");
threads=(pthread_t *)malloc(MAX_THREADS*sizeof(*threads));
pthread_attr_init(&pthread_attr);
for(i=0;i<MAX_THREADS;i++)
{
pthread_create(&threads[i],&pthread_attr,foo1,NULL);
}
for(i=0;i<MAX_THREADS;i++)
{
pthread_join(threads[i],NULL);
}
exit(1);
}
>
> Other than that, I have only the one comment below.
>
> Thanks,
> David Daney
>
<cut here>
>
>> +#define ELF_CORE_COPY_TASK_REGS(_tsk, _dest) \
>> +({ \
>> + int __res = 1; \
>> + elf32_core_copy_regs((*_dest), (task_pt_regs(_tsk))); \
>> + __res; \
>
> Why does __res exist? Can't you have that last line just be '1;'?
Sounds good. Just be '1;' is good.
Thanks,
Yong
>
>> +})
>> +
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/elfcore.h>
>> #include <linux/compat.h>
>> @@ -110,9 +127,6 @@ jiffies_to_compat_timeval(unsigned long jiffies,
>> struct compat_timeval *value)
>> value->tv_usec = rem / NSEC_PER_USEC;
>> }
>>
>> -#undef ELF_CORE_COPY_REGS
>> -#define ELF_CORE_COPY_REGS(_dest, _regs) elf32_core_copy_regs(_dest,
>> _regs);
>> -
>> void elf32_core_copy_regs(elf_gregset_t grp, struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> int i;
>
>
--
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