The VM_ALWAYSDUMP flag is currently used by the coredump code to indicate that
a vma is part of a vsyscall or vdso section, and then always dump it. However,
we
can determine if a vma is in in one of these sections by using
'arch_vma_name()',
and thus re-purpose a valuable vma bit.
Signed-off-by
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> + if (vma_name) {
> + if ((strcmp(vma_name, "[vdso]") == 0) ||
> + (strcmp(vma_name, "[vectors]") == 0) ||
> + (strcmp(vma_name, "[vsyscall]") == 0))
That's just disgusting.
> well, sure, we can provide an arch interface, for this check. I'm more
> concerned with the general idea. If it seems ok, I can re-do this bit
> with an arch interface.
Anything based on strcmp is dismal. VM_ALWAYSDUMP was nice and clean.
A hook along the lines of arch_vma_name would be clean e
A few of the vDSO VM_ALWAYSDUMP cases have a comment about the core dump.
(It looks like they were all copied from my original comment in
arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c.) So those should be removed where they are.
(You removed some of them, but not all.) You should put that comment into
always_dump
On 3/7/2012 4:19 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:43:02AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> well, sure, we can provide an arch interface, for this check. I'm more
>>> concerned with the general idea. If it seems ok, I can re-do this bit
>>> with an arch interface.
>> Anything base
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:59:58AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> > + if (vma_name) {
> > + if ((strcmp(vma_name, "[vdso]") == 0) ||
> > + (strcmp(vma_name, "[vectors]") == 0) ||
> > + (str
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:43:02AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > well, sure, we can provide an arch interface, for this check. I'm more
> > concerned with the general idea. If it seems ok, I can re-do this bit
> > with an arch interface.
>
> Anything based on strcmp is dismal. VM_ALWAYSDUMP wa
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 04:26:46PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 4:19 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:43:02AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >>> well, sure, we can provide an arch interface, for this check. I'm more
> >>> concerned with the general idea. If it seem
