[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4FF70A09020000780008E155@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:53:45 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Olaf Hering" <olaf@...fle.de>
Cc: <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Daniel Kiper" <dkiper@...-space.pl>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] incorrect layout of globals from head_64.S
during kexec boot
>>> On 06.07.12 at 15:31, Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >>> On 06.07.12 at 14:07, Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de> wrote:
>> > But adding some debug to inspect
>> > *output in parse_elf() shows that the second entry in program headers is
>> > already shifted by 44 bytes in my testing, the others are shifted by the
>> > same amount.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's not clear what is shifted - the printout below
>> looks just fine. Also, from your first mail I understood that the shift
>> there was by an amount not divisible by 4 - does that amount vary?
>
> The memory location of the second LOAD entry (the .data section) is wrong.
> It should be at 0x1c00000, but in fact its content starts at 0x1c0002c.
> I looked at the x86 boot code, the vmlinux is gzipped and placed as
> binary blob, which is then extracted by decompress().
Are the virtual addresses then offset as well?
Is phdr->p_offset sane?
And you didn't clarify whether the offset was always the same.
Jan
--
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