Re: [Vol-users] Incorrect addresses in linux_proc_maps

Here's /proc/1264/maps http://paste.ubuntu.com/5584610/ On 1 March 2013 18:01, Edwin Smulders &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. > Sadly, I can't access my VMs at home, so I'll send the > /proc/<pid>/maps first thing in the morning on monday. > > Cheers, > Edwin > > On 1 March 2013 17:29, Michael Hale Ligh &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> Ah, this has to do with the fact that a long and unsigned long on x86 Linux >> is actually 8 bytes (instead of 4 like on Windows). >> >> We'll take a look at changing the formatting specification to account for >> this difference in sizes, and if it can't be done easily before the 2.3 >> release, then we'll revert the patch in r3090 to re-incorporate mask_number. >> >> Please still send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps just so we know how it >> looks for the future. >> MHL >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Hale Ligh &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for reporting. We just recently removed the mask_number function >>> (http://code.google.com/p/volatility/source/detail?r=3090) because vm_start >>> and vm_end are already unsigned (so you shouldn't see negative numbers in >>> output). >>> >>> I'm guessing this may be a problem with our output formatting, but we'll >>> look into it (the output of /proc/<pid>/maps like Andrew asked for would be >>> useful). >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Case &lt;atcuno(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps that corresponds to one of >>>> the processes with the broken plugin output? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Edwin Smulders &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > I've just created a profile for my Ubuntu 12.04 (3.5.0-25) and I've >>>> > dumped the memory using virtualbox guestcoredump. >>>> > Using the linux_proc_maps plugin I get the following output: >>>> > >>>> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/5576450/ >>>> > >>>> > I was expecting similar output to "cat /proc/<pid>/maps". As you can >>>> > see, these "-0x4...000" addresses are obviously wrong. Is this I am >>>> > doing wrong myself, or is this a bug? It happens for other processes >>>> > as well. >>>> > >>>> > If this is a bug I'll make a new issue in the tracker with the steps >>>> > I've followed to produce this. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > Edwin >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Vol-users mailing list >>>> > Vol-users(a)volatilityfoundation.org >>>> > http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Vol-users mailing list >>>> Vol-users(a)volatilityfoundation.org >>>> http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users >>> >>> >>