On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:25:25PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> writes: > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:07:29 +0000 "Pearson, Greg" <greg.pear...@hp.com> > > wrote: > > > >> As far as I know the only consequence of dropping a PT_NOTE entry is > >> that it would not be available in the crash dump for use in debugging. > >> I'm not sure how important this data might be for triage. I'm guessing > >> that in cases where one of these strange PT_NOTE entries shows up with a > >> size that causes an overflow it probably isn't even a real PT_NOTE entry > >> so dropping it won't matter, but that's a guess at this point since I'm > >> still trying to figure out how the bogus entries were created. > > > > Can we detect the crazy-huge notes, skip them and then proceed with > > the following sanely-sized ones? > > The only way we can have following sanely-sized notes is if they are in > a separate note segment (one of our extensions for kdump and > /proc/vmcore merges them together).
This processing is happening before we have merged ELF notes. Previous kernel/kexec-tools prepared per cpu PT_NOTE type ELF note. One for each cpu. And by default it prepares only one ELF note per PT_NOTE. So there should not be more notes in the same PT_NOTE. Also even if there are, n_namesz and n_descsz values seem so high that after skipping these nothing valid should be after that. So I will not be too worried about skipping seemingly corrupted ELf notes. I think giving a warning makes sense though. Is somebody overwriting the memory area in kenrel reserved for per cpu PT_NOTE. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/