On 30/5/23 10:54 pm, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
Side-note: in `get_function_bounds()`, I see `kallsyms_lookup()` being
used, but the name seems discarded? Can
`kallsyms_lookup_size_offset()` be used instead, thus avoiding the
usage of the buffer there to begin with?
I'm not familiar with the kallsyms
Miguel Ojeda writes:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 4:02 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> > Side-note: in `get_function_bounds()`, I see `kallsyms_lookup()` being
>> > used, but the name seems discarded? Can
>> > `kallsyms_lookup_size_offset()` be used instead, thus avoiding the
>> > usage of the
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 4:02 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > Side-note: in `get_function_bounds()`, I see `kallsyms_lookup()` being
> > used, but the name seems discarded? Can
> > `kallsyms_lookup_size_offset()` be used instead, thus avoiding the
> > usage of the buffer there to begin with?
>
> A
Miguel Ojeda writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 1:14 PM Maninder Singh
> wrote:
>>
>> +static char tmpstr[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
>
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda
>
> Side-note: in `get_function_bounds()`, I see `kallsyms_lookup()` being
> used, but the name seems discarded? Can
>
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 1:14 PM Maninder Singh wrote:
>
> +static char tmpstr[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda
Side-note: in `get_function_bounds()`, I see `kallsyms_lookup()` being
used, but the name seems discarded? Can
`kallsyms_lookup_size_offset()` be used instead, thus avoiding
Maninder Singh writes:
> kallsyms_lookup which in turn calls for kallsyms_lookup_buildid()
> writes on index "KSYM_NAME_LEN - 1".
>
> Thus array size should be KSYM_NAME_LEN.
>
> for powerpc it was defined as "128" directly.
> and commit '61968dbc2d5d' changed define value to 512,
> So both were
kallsyms_lookup which in turn calls for kallsyms_lookup_buildid()
writes on index "KSYM_NAME_LEN - 1".
Thus array size should be KSYM_NAME_LEN.
for powerpc it was defined as "128" directly.
and commit '61968dbc2d5d' changed define value to 512,
So both were missed to update with new size.
