It works, thank you!

On 2 April 2013 14:21, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright, system built, problem reproduced, and subsequently fixed. The
> problem was our initial attempt to overlay (i.e. hard-code) the vm_start and
> vm_end members to unsigned values failed because the overlay was put in the
> wrong place.
>
> https://code.google.com/p/volatility/source/detail?r=3265
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> OK, so I'll grab
>> http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.2/ubuntu-12.04.2-server-i386.iso for my
>> test system.
>>
>> Hang tight....we'll figure it out. There is eventually an explanation for
>> all craziness!
>>
>> MHL
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have ubuntu-12.04.2-server-i386.iso
>>>
>>> To give you a clue,
>>> 481d4000 =
>>> 0100 1000 0001 1101 0100 0000 0000 0000
>>>
>>> b7e2b000 =
>>> 1011 0111 1110 0010 1011 0000 0000 0000
>>>
>>> It's the inverse, so I guess some signing issue? But I don't know
>>> enough to say anything conclusive
>>>
>>> On 2 April 2013 13:36, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Interesting....
>>> >
>>> > I think I'll build my own VM to match your specs so I can do more
>>> > debugging.
>>> > You're using Ubuntu 12.04 x86 desktop? Do you think the following link
>>> > is
>>> > what most closely resembles your base build?
>>> >
>>> > http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.2/ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-i386.iso
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> > Michael
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> > <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> This is the actual /proc/pid/maps of the process I just tested
>>> >>
>>> >> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670138/
>>> >>
>>> >> On 2 April 2013 13:26, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670124/
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Change is improvement, I guess :)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 2 April 2013 13:25, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> OK, update to r3264 and I will keep my fingers crossed that this
>>> >> >> solves
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> issue.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks for the quick reply!
>>> >> >> Michael
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670109/
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Cheers,
>>> >> >>> Edwin
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On 2 April 2013 13:12, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Hmm, yes, if you don't mind...there is one more thing. Could you
>>> >> >>> > type
>>> >> >>> > "make
>>> >> >>> > clean" in the directory where vol.py exists and then re-run the
>>> >> >>> > plugin?
>>> >> >>> > This
>>> >> >>> > will make sure all possibly stale .pyc (compiled python objects)
>>> >> >>> > are
>>> >> >>> > removed. We basically hard-coded the vm start and end fields to
>>> >> >>> > be
>>> >> >>> > unsigned,
>>> >> >>> > so its really strange if they're still showing up negative.
>>> >> >>> > Also,
>>> >> >>> > could
>>> >> >>> > you
>>> >> >>> > paste just the first few lines of the linux_proc_maps output,
>>> >> >>> > something
>>> >> >>> > else
>>> >> >>> > may give us a clue if we see it.
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Thanks again,
>>> >> >>> > Michael
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> > <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Finally, it's tuesday morning, I can test your solution.
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Sadly, it's still giving me the same output (revision 3263).
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Is there anything else I can do to help you find a solution?
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> >>> >> Edwin
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> On 2 April 2013 04:37, Michael Hale Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> > Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > Hope you had a nice weekend! Just wanted to check and see if
>>> >> >>> >> > you
>>> >> >>> >> > had
>>> >> >>> >> > a
>>> >> >>> >> > chance to determine if the linux_proc_maps plugin is printing
>>> >> >>> >> > output
>>> >> >>> >> > in
>>> >> >>> >> > a
>>> >> >>> >> > more accurate way now?
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > Thanks!
>>> >> >>> >> > Michael
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Michael Hale Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> Hi Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> Could you please svn update to revision 3220 or later and
>>> >> >>> >> >> re-test
>>> >> >>> >> >> the
>>> >> >>> >> >> linux_proc_maps plugin?
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> Thanks,
>>> >> >>> >> >> Michael
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> Correct URL: http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/dwarfdump
>>> >> >>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> On 29 March 2013 16:18, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > On 29 March 2013 15:25, Michael Hale Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> While we look into that, could you
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> tell me what version of dwarfdump you have installed?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > I would love to tell you, but I had to go home early and
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > due
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > to
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > easter
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > I can tell you on tuesday morning what the exact version
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > is.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > However, it was a fresh install of ubuntu 12.04 and as
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > far as
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > I
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > can
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > tell there have been no updates to the package since
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > december, so
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > it
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > must be this version:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/libdwarf-dev
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> (Sending this a second time, first time i forgot to
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> include
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> the
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> mailing-list)
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Here's the struct:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5657610/
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I did not realise the first time that I could simply dt
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> it
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> like
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> that.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I've attached the profile, if it's not too big.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Edwin
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On 28 March 2013 18:49, Michael Hale Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > On second thought, if you could send your profile
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > (LinuxUbuntu-12_04-3_5_0-25x86.zip), that would be
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > even
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > better.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > Thanks!
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > Michael
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Michael Hale Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Sorry for the delay and thanks for the additional
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> output.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Could
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> you run
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> one more thing, please? Instead of doing
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> dt('mm_struct',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> address)
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> could
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> you
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> just do dt('mm_struct'). That will show the actual
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> types
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> rather
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> than
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> the
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> values of a specific structure. For example:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> dt('mm_struct')
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 'mm_struct' (436 bytes)
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x0   : mmap                           ['pointer',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['vm_area_struct']]
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x4   : mm_rb                          ['rb_root']
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x8   : mmap_cache                     ['pointer',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['vm_area_struct']]
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0xc   : get_unmapped_area              ['pointer',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x10  : get_unmapped_exec_area         ['pointer',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x14  : unmap_area                     ['pointer',
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> ['void']]
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x18  : mmap_base                      ['unsigned
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> long']
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x1c  : task_size                      ['unsigned
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> long']
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> .....
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Can you paste the output of that command?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Thanks for your patience,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Michael
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> Yes, also it seems that I was wrong about
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> start_brk/brk, so
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> i
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> guess
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> they just overflowed.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5634126/
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> On 21 March 2013 14:44, Michael Ligh
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Hey Edwin,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Can you use linux_volshell and dt() the task.mm
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > struct?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Do
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > start_stack
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > and arg_start show up as unsigned?
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > MHL
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> I'd like to expand a bit more on this issue. I
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> don't
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> think
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> it's
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> just a
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> formatting issue, now that I'm actually using
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> this
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> to
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> develop
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> my
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> own
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> plugin I noticed that the values I get from the
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> task.mm.start_stack,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> task.mm.arg_start and several other values are
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> actually
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> negative
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> numbers. task.mm.start_brk/task.mm.brk seem to
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> be
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> ok,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> not
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> sure
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> why.
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> On 4 March 2013 10:02, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Here's /proc/1264/maps
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5584610/
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 March 2013 18:01, Edwin Smulders
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> <michael.hale@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> <atcuno@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> <edwin.smulders@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> 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@volatilityfoundation.org
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.volatilesystems.com/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users@volatilityfoundation.org
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> http://lists.volatilesystems.com/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>