Ah, ok.  What I'm thinking of is something like the following (untested
and probably improperly thought out patch...):
--- orig/fs/proc/kcore.c	Sat Nov  2 18:58:18 2002
+++ linux/fs/proc/kcore.c	Fri Feb  7 19:48:35 2003
@@ -99,7 +99,10 @@
 }
 #else /* CONFIG_KCORE_AOUT */
 
+#ifndef KCORE_BASE
 #define	KCORE_BASE	PAGE_OFFSET
+#define in_vmlist_region(x) ((x) >= VMALLOC_START && (x) < VMALLOC_END)
+#endif
 
 #define roundup(x, y)  ((((x)+((y)-1))/(y))*(y))
 
@@ -394,7 +397,7 @@
 		tsz = buflen;
 		
 	while (buflen) {
-		if ((start >= VMALLOC_START) && (start < VMALLOC_END)) {
+		if (in_vmlist_region(start)) {
 			char * elf_buf;
 			struct vm_struct *m;
 			unsigned long curstart = start;
An architecture could then define KCORE_BASE and in_vmlist_region()
alongside their VMALLOC_START definition if they needed to change
them.
> There was some discussion on a better way to do this, by adding the
> kernel itself to the vmlist, and eliminating all the special case code.
> I took a brief look at this, but realised that there were all sorts
> of ugly race conditions with /proc/kcore if a module is loaded/unloaded
> after some process has read the Elf header.
Well, only root can debug using /proc/kcore, and I'd suggest the best
answer to that problem is "if it hurts, don't do that."  I don't think
you should prevent modules from being unloaded just because you have
/proc/kcore open.
-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/