Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

provide full path to module separately from name #138

Closed
derekbruening opened this issue Nov 27, 2014 · 2 comments
Closed

provide full path to module separately from name #138

derekbruening opened this issue Nov 27, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@derekbruening
Copy link
Contributor

From [email protected] on May 01, 2009 09:24:41

Some clients may need the full path to each application module/library.
One use case is post-processing for symbols. And once we have issue #44 ,
DR itself will probably want to re-organize the module name struct
and priority and make the path a separate field rather than one in a series
of choices for name. The name part of the path should still be a choice
for name, to be consistent, but not the whole path, which should be
available separately.

On Linux with HAVE_PROC_MAPS we have the path available. On Windows we
only set if at_map && -track_module_filenames due to concerns over
walking the LDR_MODULE list and pulling out LDR_MODULE.FullDllName: we only
use it for debugging. We'll have to re-evaluate that.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/dynamorio/issues/detail?id=138

@derekbruening
Copy link
Contributor Author

From [email protected] on August 31, 2009 10:24:12

on Windows we can do what GetMappedFileName does: call NtQueryVirtualMemory with
MemorySectionName which returns the file name backing the section.
we should use that instead of -track_module_filenames, which relies
on seeing the CreateSection and on it being right before the map
(and currently only saves the short name).

@derekbruening
Copy link
Contributor Author

From [email protected] on January 04, 2010 20:38:39

committed in r257 : see commit log for details

Status: Verified

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant