Re: [Vol-users] Incorrect addresses in linux_proc_maps

http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670124/ Change is improvement, I guess :) On 2 April 2013 13:25, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Edwin, > > OK, update to r3264 and I will keep my fingers crossed that this solves

> issue. > > Thanks for the quick reply! > Michael > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Edwin Smulders <

> wrote: >> >> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5670109/ >> >> Cheers, >> Edwin >> >> On 2 April 2013 13:12, Michael Hale Ligh &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt;

>> > 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

>> > 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,

>> > you >> > paste just the first few lines of the linux_proc_maps output,

>> > else >> > may give us a clue if we see it. >> > >> > Thanks again, >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Edwin Smulders >> > &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > 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 &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hey Edwin, >> >> > >> >> > Hope you had a nice weekend! Just wanted to check and see if you

>> >> > a >> >> > chance to determine if the linux_proc_maps plugin is printing

>> >> > in >> >> > a >> >> > more accurate way now? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks! >> >> > Michael >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Michael Hale Ligh >> >> > &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> > 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 >> >> >> &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Correct URL: http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/dwarfdump >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 29 March 2013 16:18, Edwin Smulders <

>> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> > On 29 March 2013 15:25, Michael Hale Ligh >> >> >>> > &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> > 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

>> >> >>> > 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

>> >> >>> > can >> >> >>> > tell there have been no updates to the package since

>> >> >>> > it >> >> >>> > must be this version: >> >> >>> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/libdwarf-dev >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edwin Smulders >> >> >>> >> &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> (Sending this a second time, first time i forgot to include

>> >> >>> >>> mailing-list) >> >> >>> >>> Here's the struct: >> >> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5657610/ >> >> >>> >>> I did not realise the first time that I could simply dt it

>> >> >>> >>> that. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> I've attached the profile, if it's not too big. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >> >> >>> >>> Edwin >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 28 March 2013 18:49, Michael Hale Ligh >> >> >>> >>> &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >>> >>> > &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >>> > 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',

>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x10 : get_unmapped_exec_area ['pointer',

>> >> >>> >>> >> 0x14 : unmap_area ['pointer',

>> >> >>> >>> >> 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 >> >> >>> >>> >> &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Yes, also it seems that I was wrong about

>> >> >>> >>> >>> i >> >> >>> >>> >>> guess >> >> >>> >>> >>> they just overflowed. >> >> >>> >>> >>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5634126/ >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> On 21 March 2013 14:44, Michael Ligh >> >> >>> >>> >>> &lt;michael.hale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> > Hey Edwin, >> >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> >>> > Can you use linux_volshell and dt() the task.mmstruct? >> >> >>> >>> >>> > 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 >> >> >>> >>> >>> > &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >>> >>> > 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> negative >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> numbers. task.mm.start_brk/task.mm.brk seem to be ok, >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> not >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> sure >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> why. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> On 4 March 2013 10:02, Edwin Smulders >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> &lt;edwin.smulders(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> /proc/<pid>/maps first thing in the morning on

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> mask_number >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> function >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> (

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> 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

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Vol-users(a)volatilityfoundation.org >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>

>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >