Re: [PATCH 02/02] Elf: Align elf notes properly

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/10/06, Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
"Magnus Damm" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux