[Crash-utility] [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions on PPC64 target x86_64 binary

[lijiang]

Hi, Kazu and Arun

在 2020年09月25日 00:00, crash-utility-request at redhat.com 写道:
> Send Crash-utility mailing list submissions to
> 	crash-utility at redhat.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	crash-utility-request at redhat.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	crash-utility-owner at redhat.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Crash-utility digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions on PPC64 target
>       x86_64 binary (HAGIO KAZUHITO (?????))
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 08:16:06 +0000
> From: HAGIO KAZUHITO(?????) 	<k-hagio-ab at nec.com>
> To: "Discussion list for crash utility usage,	maintenance and
> 	development"	<crash-utility at redhat.com>
> Subject: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Fix for failure when using extensions
> 	on PPC64 target x86_64 binary
> Message-ID:
> 	<OSBPR01MB1991B1B7CD686FBC72827E2BDD390 at OSBPR01MB1991.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
> 
> Without the patch, the "extend" command on an x86_64 binary that can
> be used to analyze ppc64le dumpfiles fails with the error meesage
> "extend: <path to extension>: not an ELF format object".
> 
> Suggested-by: Arun Easi <aeasi.linux at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio-ab at nec.com>
> ---
> I'm not sure which tag I should use in this case, so if you want
> me to use another one e.g. Signed-off-by, please let me know.
> 
>  symbols.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/symbols.c b/symbols.c
> index d22fb1d9bdd1..603946db4f34 100644
> --- a/symbols.c
> +++ b/symbols.c
> @@ -3868,7 +3868,8 @@ is_shared_object(char *file)
>  			break;
>  
>  		case EM_X86_64:
> -			if (machine_type("X86_64") || machine_type("ARM64")) 
> +			if (machine_type("X86_64") || machine_type("ARM64") ||
> +			    machine_type("PPC64"))

For the other architectures such as S390, IA64, etc, is it possible to occur
the similar problems on an x86_64 host? Or no one uses it like this?

Thanks.
Lianbo

>  				return TRUE;
>  			break;
>  
>