From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 43EEA3857722; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:48:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 43EEA3857722 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1698932931; bh=9AW1D3Z3lguvVzTEMRWfL7ZU3rEmPsVCM7JsGtNwmFM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yjoB5Te9vb2KUUxNmgC+gSWLouK53slgz877eZ5vtGiEUfZCZhBI0YoZDyh8A0wUV pxePxuLLrnCPdPEKgBNG8+i2KOx9plvdkMsZOFgCPBJCCi1Q8khI4SsP0ZSKdnGvpU KAaFLwWJsTbcg5ct7PRzYk+W2gpHYPpXaqqKIusk= From: "mark at klomp dot org" To: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug general/30975] elfutils incorrectly reports core files with non-contiguous segments Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 13:48:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: elfutils X-Bugzilla-Component: general X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at klomp dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status cc everconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30975 Mark Wielaard changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2023-11-02 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC| |mark at klomp dot org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard --- I believe your analysis of the code is correct. But I don't yet know what the correct fix for this is. We'll probably need to do multiple passes over the list to combine the segments that are part of the same ELF file. In theory we support split Dwfl_Modules for e.g kernel modules, which are ET_REL files where the sections are loaded individually. But I am not yet sure how that would translate to general user space executables/shared libraries (which are assumed to have just one base load address). Maybe we should ignore any segment not having the executable flag set? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=