Re: [XenAccess-devel] start_code and end_code are the same address?

[Daniele S. <da...@ya...>]

--- "Bryan D. Payne" <br...@th...> ha scritto: 

> I'm playing with XenAccess this evening and I don't
> seem to have the  
> problem that you do.  Are you using the release
> version (0.1) or the  
> version from subversion?  I'm getting ready to
> release the next  
> version, but I'd like to make sure that this issue
> is resolved first :-)
>
I'm using the 0.1 version (the one downloadable from
the main page). I have a Fedora 5 distribution with an
unmodified version of Xen (I mean, not recompiled):

# uname -r
2.6.16-1.2133_FC5xen0


> 
> PS... Here's a kernel module that you can run in
> domU to get the same  
> information (start_code, etc).  You can use this to
> see if the  
> XenAccess output is correct.  On my machine, they
> match.
> 
>
http://linuxgazette.net/112/misc/krishnakumar/print_kern_ds.c.txt

This is the output of process-data from dom0:

#./run ./process-data | head -12
Memory descriptor addresses for pid = 1:
start_code = 0xc03e2e88
end_code = 0xc03e2e88
start_data = 0x00000035
end_data = 0x00000009
start_brk = 0x0000003b
brk = 0x000000ad
start_stack = 0x000000ac
arg_stack = 0x00000000
arg_end = 0x00000073
env_start = 0x00000071
env_end = 0x00000016

This is the output of pmap from domU (a Slackware
distribution):

# pmap 1
1:   init [5]
00194000      8K r-x--  /lib/libdl-2.4.so
00196000      4K r-x--  /lib/libdl-2.4.so
00197000      4K rwx--  /lib/libdl-2.4.so
0073b000      4K r-x--    [ anon ]
0073c000    100K r-x--  /lib/ld-2.4.so
00755000      4K r-x--  /lib/ld-2.4.so
00756000      4K rwx--  /lib/ld-2.4.so
0081e000   1212K r-x--  /lib/i686/nosegneg/libc-2.4.so
0094d000     12K r-x--  /lib/i686/nosegneg/libc-2.4.so
00950000      4K rwx--  /lib/i686/nosegneg/libc-2.4.so
00951000     12K rwx--    [ anon ]
00cf6000     12K r-x--  /lib/libsetrans.so.0
00cf9000      4K rwx--  /lib/libsetrans.so.0
00de2000     80K r-x--  /lib/libselinux.so.1
00df6000      8K rwx--  /lib/libselinux.so.1
00fa9000    224K r-x--  /lib/libsepol.so.1
00fe1000      4K rwx--  /lib/libsepol.so.1
00fe2000     40K rwx--    [ anon ]
08048000     32K r-x--  /sbin/init
08050000      4K rw---  /sbin/init
0908f000    132K rw---    [ anon ]
b7f16000      8K rw---    [ anon ]
b7f33000      4K rw---    [ anon ]
bfc1e000     84K rw---    [ stack ]
fbffd000      4K -----    [ anon ]

Moreover, it seems that for every pid, I have (more or
less) the same result.
I've tried to do something like this:

for(vaddr = 0; ; vaddr+=XC_PAGE_SIZE)
{
	memory = xa_access_user_virtual_address(
                &xai, vaddr, &offset, pid);
    if(memory != NULL)
      {	      
	      printf("not a valid address [0x%lx]\n", vaddr);
      }
    else
	{	
		printf("valid address [0x%lx]\n", vaddr);
	}	
}

and the valid addresses are in the range above
0xc0000000.

I hope these information can help you.
Cheers




Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com