X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=mfN0il+tokJwhTf++PVFnc56J6l8WCex6q+OKW7iKIE
	wiRNSF5EGrvshINnPfLNiXkvzggQB4m/YTHW0CXqknsp3mMRFZDKc9BVWw738l+/
	5ES82StDkczuZ1noZbGfdo8+GCQwJ+988Zw/qzOzphpulMr5tGkps1eVzGgdCK6g
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=lmiVt07qi8QSKZtB58OrwQzKh5M=; b=MS/HVE4YvKgSU6YWF
	f98bmX87HU4tZK4hSOowjk+sQy0D7sl51ShjlmVcbX8GN0cXLbrgRlv9Oz2/InVe
	/bVcmqJ+nqRC2Mj8n3Zz7bMQRHmXQDghfsPrrh0jsza3m8AFElNNBMbFf5UpFOOG
	GwVtBdxmu5Zu7ImDaw6qrR2gsY=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	red.contecint.com.au
Message-ID:	<531FDCA8.1040709@constrainttec.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:03:52 +1100
From:	"Sam Liapis AT constrainttec DOT com" <Sam DOT Liapis AT constrainttec DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: 1.7.25, Windows 7: dumper doesn't generate core file
References:	<531FD728 DOT 2000600 AT constrainttec DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<531FD728.2000600@constrainttec.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id:	<531FD728 DOT 2000600 AT constrainttec DOT com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Thanks Corinna I appreciate the response.

>>Question 2: IS THE CODE MODIFICATION AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM?

  > Maybe, but first it would be helpful if somebody could explain why
  > sections should be able to overlap at all. That's puzzling me.
  >
  > As for patches, did you seehttp://cygwin.com/contrib.html
  > For small, obvious patches, we don't need the copyright assignment.
  > Rule of thumb is < 10 lines.


     I'm happy to submit minor patches on both points covered in the 
original post.
     However as you noted I'll wait for someone to first explain if/why 
sections overlap.

Thanks,
Sam


On 11/03/14 22:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Mar 11 10:35, Sam Liapis wrote:
>> >As a disclaimer I'm new to Cygwin and memory mapping that's alluded  to in this post.
>> >
>> >My brief was to investigate and resolve an issue with dumper not  producing a core.
>> >
>> >With that I'll proceed with outlining the journey including my  findings so far.
>> >
>> >I'll begin with the error message given by dumper when run in verbose mode:
>> >(Note: I modified debug output to provide base address of excluded memory)
>> >[,..]
>> >Code analysis reveals a few shortcomings leading up to this failure.  Firstly the process of
>> >identifying sections to exclude, includes sorting and checking that  regions do not overlap.
>> >Upon closer inspection the function in question at  ...winsup/utils/parse_pe.cc appears to
>> >have a couple of problems.
>> >
>> >     a) "if (q == p + 1)" at line 60 always resolves true bypassing  subsequent loop code.
>> >
>> >     b) The 'size' parameter at line 63 is a global instead of  p->size. The test expression
>> >        should be if (p->base + p->size > q->base) in order to test  for overlapping regions.
> This looks very wrong indeed.
>
>> >[...]
>> >Even if sort_and_check () worked correctly it wouldn't prevent  dumper failure it just raises an alert.
>> >
>> >Secondly when dumper builds a list of memory regions to dump into a  core file it has no logic to cater
>> >for overlapping sections to exclude. Here in lies my first question  regarding this issue:
>> >
>> >
>> >Question 1: SHOULD MEMORY REGIONS IDENTIFIED FOR EXCLUSION EVER OVERLAP?
> I can't really answer this question safely, but AFAIK, the answer is
> no.  The sections and memory layout in a pe/coff file are so that the
> sections have unique VMAs, including debug sections.  An overlap of
> sections should never occur, otherwise the Windows loader would have
> refused to load the executable into memory anyway.  Unless I'm missing
> something...
>
>> >Question 2: IS THE CODE MODIFICATION AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM?
> Maybe, but first it would be helpful if somebody could explain why
> sections should be able to overlap at all.  That's puzzeling me.
>
> As for patches, did you seehttp://cygwin.com/contrib.html
> For small, obvious patches, we don't need the copyright assignment.
> Rule of thumb is < 10 lines.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>
> -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin 
> Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -