On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:48:33PM +0800, Zou Nan hai wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 10:05, Akiyama, Nobuyuki wrote:
> > Hi Jay,
> >
> > The attacked patch fixes the problem.
> > Please try.
> >
> > diff -Nurp kexec-tools-1.101.org/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c
> > kexec-tools-1.101/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c
> > --- kexec-tools-1.101.org/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c
> > 2006-11-09 19:40:52.000000000 +0900
> > +++ kexec-tools-1.101/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c 2006-11-13
> > 19:17:15.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -316,9 +316,13 @@ int load_crashdump_segments(struct kexec
> > int nr_ranges;
> > size_t size;
> > void *tmp;
> > + long int nr_cpus = 0;
> > + if ((nr_cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF)) < 0)
> > + return -1;
> > if (info->kexec_flags & KEXEC_ON_CRASH ) {
> > if (get_crash_memory_ranges(&mem_range, &nr_ranges) ==
> > 0) {
> > size = sizeof(Elf64_Ehdr) +
> > + (nr_cpus + 1) * sizeof(Elf64_Phdr) +
> > (nr_ranges + 1) * sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);
> > size = (size + EFI_PAGE_SIZE - 1) &
> > ~(EFI_PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> > tmp = xmalloc(size);
> >
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for finding the is bug, I missed percpu notes segments in size
> calculation here. However I think we should also include the nr_ranges
> in calculation.
>
> --- a/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c 2006-12-04 04:19:42.000000000
> -0500
> +++ b/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c 2006-12-04 04:21:23.000000000
> -0500
> @@ -313,13 +313,15 @@ int load_crashdump_segments(struct kexec
> {
> //struct memory_range *mem_range, *memmap_p;
> struct memory_range *mem_range;
> - int nr_ranges;
> + int nr_ranges, nr_cpus;
> size_t size;
> void *tmp;
> + if ((nr_cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF)) < 0)
> + return -1;
> if (info->kexec_flags & KEXEC_ON_CRASH ) {
> if (get_crash_memory_ranges(&mem_range, &nr_ranges) == 0) {
> size = sizeof(Elf64_Ehdr) +
> - (nr_ranges + 1) * sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);
> + (nr_ranges + nr_cpus + 1) * sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);
> size = (size + EFI_PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(EFI_PAGE_SIZE -
> 1);
> tmp = xmalloc(size);
> memset(tmp, 0, size);
Hi,
that patch looks correct to me. However, I believe that the problem is
already resolved in kexec-tools-testing by using the generic /proc/iomem
handling code that was introduced in changesets
c80198e78ce26783e092645b9ac8587e1374f22f and
f038d30bff8510a1df1e72af08db1766581d1f2c.
Could someone please test this?
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
_______________________________________________
fastboot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
