| Message ID | 1281365033-6893-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. > > Example: > > While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are > used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? > Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the > next symbol value. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> > --- > hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h > index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 > --- a/hw/elf_ops.h > +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h > @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, > syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); > > qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); > + for (i = 0; i < nsyms - 1; i++) { > + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { > + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - syms[i].st_value; > + } > + } The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. > } else { > qemu_free(syms); > syms = NULL; > -- > 1.7.1 > > >
Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > >> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >> >> Example: >> >> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >> > That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' > directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? > It's not just ARM. ARM is just an example. But I stumbled upon this problem when running the linux start code from arch/arm/kernel/head.S. >> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >> next symbol value. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >> --- >> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >> >> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - syms[i].st_value; >> + } >> + } >> > The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed > to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. > Or better syms[nsyms - 1].st_size = _etext - syms[nsyms - 1].st_value Even that would be wrong if the last symbol is not in the text segment but data. Programming that special case just to get perhaps one last symbol size seems too much perfectionism. Most symbols have a size != 0, so let's hope the last symbol has one, too :-)
Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > >> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >> >> Example: >> >> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >> > That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' > directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? > > >> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >> next symbol value. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >> --- >> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >> >> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - syms[i].st_value; >> + } >> + } >> > The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed > to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. > > >> } else { >> qemu_free(syms); >> syms = NULL; >> -- >> 1.7.1 > The patch is still missing in qemu master. From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed. Was I wrong, or can it be applied?
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: >> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >>> >>> Example: >>> >>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >>> >> >> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' >> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? >> >> >>> >>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >>> next symbol value. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>> --- >>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr >>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >>> >>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - >>> syms[i].st_value; >>> + } >>> + } >>> >> >> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed >> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. >> >> >>> >>> } else { >>> qemu_free(syms); >>> syms = NULL; >>> -- >>> 1.7.1 >> > > > The patch is still missing in qemu master. > From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed. > Was I wrong, or can it be applied? Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great.
Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: >> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >>>> >>>> Example: >>>> >>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >>>> >>> >>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' >>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >>>> next symbol value. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>> --- >>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr >>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >>>> >>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - >>>> syms[i].st_value; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> >>> >>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed >>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> } else { >>>> qemu_free(syms); >>>> syms = NULL; >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.1 >>> >> >> >> The patch is still missing in qemu master. >> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed. >> Was I wrong, or can it be applied? > > Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, > half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great. The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need a fix, so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok :-) If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability that nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced with QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code. Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted list of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols! I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in no relation to the code needed. Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last symbol. The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is only ok if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols for data in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text segment which makes guesses of its size much more complicated. To make it short: I don't know how to fix the last symbol in a reasonable way. Sorry, Stefan
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl: >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >>>>> >>>>> Example: >>>>> >>>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >>>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' >>>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >>>>> next symbol value. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr >>>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >>>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >>>>> >>>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >>>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >>>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >>>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - >>>>> syms[i].st_value; >>>>> + } >>>>> + } >>>>> >>>> >>>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed >>>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> } else { >>>>> qemu_free(syms); >>>>> syms = NULL; >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.7.1 >>>> >>> >>> >>> The patch is still missing in qemu master. >>> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed. >>> Was I wrong, or can it be applied? >> >> Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, >> half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great. > > > The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need a > fix, > so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok > :-) > If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability > that > nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced > with > QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code. > Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted > list > of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols! > > I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in no > relation > to the code needed. > > Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last > symbol. > The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is only > ok > if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols > for data > in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the > text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text > segment > which makes guesses of its size much more complicated. How about using _end then?
Am 09.09.2010 21:29, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > >> Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Example: >>>>>> >>>>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >>>>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' >>>>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >>>>>> next symbol value. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >>>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >>>>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr >>>>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >>>>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >>>>>> >>>>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >>>>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >>>>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - >>>>>> syms[i].st_value; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed >>>>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> } else { >>>>>> qemu_free(syms); >>>>>> syms = NULL; >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 1.7.1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The patch is still missing in qemu master. >>>> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be changed. >>>> Was I wrong, or can it be applied? >>>> >>> Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, >>> half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great. >>> >> >> The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need a >> fix, >> so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok >> :-) >> If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability >> that >> nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced >> with >> QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code. >> Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted >> list >> of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols! >> >> I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in no >> relation >> to the code needed. >> >> Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last >> symbol. >> The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is only >> ok >> if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols >> for data >> in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the >> text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text >> segment >> which makes guesses of its size much more complicated. >> > How about using _end then? > > Wouldn't _end be the last symbol then?
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > Am 09.09.2010 21:29, schrieb Blue Swirl: >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are >>>>>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' >>>>>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the >>>>>>> next symbol value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ >>>>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h >>>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr >>>>>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, >>>>>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); >>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { >>>>>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { >>>>>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - >>>>>>> syms[i].st_value; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed >>>>>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> } else { >>>>>>> qemu_free(syms); >>>>>>> syms = NULL; >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 1.7.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The patch is still missing in qemu master. >>>>> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be >>>>> changed. >>>>> Was I wrong, or can it be applied? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, >>>> half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great. >>>> >>> >>> The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need >>> a >>> fix, >>> so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok >>> :-) >>> If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability >>> that >>> nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced >>> with >>> QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code. >>> Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted >>> list >>> of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols! >>> >>> I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in >>> no >>> relation >>> to the code needed. >>> >>> Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last >>> symbol. >>> The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is >>> only >>> ok >>> if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols >>> for data >>> in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the >>> text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text >>> segment >>> which makes guesses of its size much more complicated. >>> >> >> How about using _end then? >> >> > > Wouldn't _end be the last symbol then? Right, _end should be the last one in any case. I'll apply the patch.
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 07:36:28PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > > Am 09.09.2010 21:29, schrieb Blue Swirl: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Am 09.09.2010 20:44, schrieb Blue Swirl: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Example: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are > >>>>>>> used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is a problem of the assembler function, it should use '.size' > >>>>>> directive like what happens when C code is compiled. And why just ARM? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the > >>>>>>> next symbol value. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ > >>>>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h > >>>>>>> index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/hw/elf_ops.h > >>>>>>> +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h > >>>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr > >>>>>>> *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, > >>>>>>> syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); > >>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i< nsyms - 1; i++) { > >>>>>>> + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { > >>>>>>> + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - > >>>>>>> syms[i].st_value; > >>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The size of the last symbol is not guesstimated, it could be assumed > >>>>>> to be _etext - syms[nsyms].st_value. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> } else { > >>>>>>> qemu_free(syms); > >>>>>>> syms = NULL; > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> 1.7.1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The patch is still missing in qemu master. > >>>>> From the two feedbacks I did not read that anything needs to be > >>>>> changed. > >>>>> Was I wrong, or can it be applied? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please fix the last symbol. Either we should fix all symbols or none, > >>>> half fixed (OK, practically all) is not so great. > >>>> > >>> > >>> The last symbol is one of several thousands, and most symbols don't need > >>> a > >>> fix, > >>> so with my fix more than 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of all symbols are ok > >>> :-) > >>> If the last symbol happens to be wrong, there is still a high probability > >>> that > >>> nobody will notice this because it is unused by QEMU. The problem I faced > >>> with > >>> QEMU's disassembly came from symbols with an address followed by code. > >>> Is there any code after the last symbol? I don't expect that. In a sorted > >>> list > >>> of symbols from the text segment, _etext should be the last symbols! > >>> > >>> I think that the small chance of a missing fix for the last symbol is in > >>> no > >>> relation > >>> to the code needed. > >>> > >>> Even worse, I have no simple formula to guess a valid value for the last > >>> symbol. > >>> The formula you suggested (with the corrections I wrote in my reply) is > >>> only > >>> ok > >>> if the last symbol is in the text segment. Usually there are also symbols > >>> for data > >>> in other segments, and in many cases these segments are located after the > >>> text segment. In these cases the last symbol is not located in the text > >>> segment > >>> which makes guesses of its size much more complicated. > >>> > >> > >> How about using _end then? > >> > >> > > > > Wouldn't _end be the last symbol then? > > Right, _end should be the last one in any case. I'll apply the patch. I'm not so sure that is the case. The load_symbols call throws away symbols that are not typed as functions. The filtering is done prior to the suggested size fixups so my guess is that _end is typically gone when the suggested size fixup is done. I'm not opposed to the patch though... Cheers
diff --git a/hw/elf_ops.h b/hw/elf_ops.h index 27d1ab9..0bd7235 100644 --- a/hw/elf_ops.h +++ b/hw/elf_ops.h @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ static int glue(load_symbols, SZ)(struct elfhdr *ehdr, int fd, int must_swab, syms = qemu_realloc(syms, nsyms * sizeof(*syms)); qsort(syms, nsyms, sizeof(*syms), glue(symcmp, SZ)); + for (i = 0; i < nsyms - 1; i++) { + if (syms[i].st_size == 0) { + syms[i].st_size = syms[i + 1].st_value - syms[i].st_value; + } + } } else { qemu_free(syms); syms = NULL;
Symbols with a size of 0 are unusable for the disassembler. Example: While running an arm linux kernel, no symbolic names are used in qemu.log when the cpu is executing an assembler function. Assume that the size of such symbols is the difference to the next symbol value. Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> --- hw/elf_ops.h | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)