* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-20 12:39 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-20 12:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-20 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-20 11:25 -------
Frank,
This just slipped the 0.9 release. Any chance of doing a 0.9.1 with the changes
required (patch should be available soon).
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-20 12:39 ` [Bug tapsets/9876] " ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-20 12:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
2009-02-20 23:51 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2009-02-20 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-02-20 12:38 -------
probe kernel.function("sys_foo")
->
probe kernel.function("SyS_foo")!, kernel.function("sys_foo")
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-20 12:39 ` [Bug tapsets/9876] " ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-20 12:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2009-02-20 23:51 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
2009-02-21 15:27 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-20 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2009-02-20 14:24 -------
Working on a patch. I should be able to roll out the patch very soon.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-20 23:51 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-21 15:27 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
2009-02-21 16:13 ` fche at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-21 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2009-02-21 14:47 -------
Created an attachment (id=3756)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3756&action=view)
Patch to handle SYSCALL WRAPPERS.
Here is the patch to cover SYSCALL wrappers SyS_* calls.
Please pour in your comments.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-21 15:27 ` mahesh at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-21 16:13 ` fche at redhat dot com
2009-02-23 10:00 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2009-02-22 22:22 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2009-02-21 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2009-02-21 15:27 -------
There are some hunks that don't use "!" but rather "?" (syscall.writev.return,
syscall.mount, ...), probably because there are "compat" variants also. This
can still result in double-counting syscalls, so please write & run a test case
to check for this.
If a problem exists, this might solve it. Instead of this ...
probe syscall.mount =
kernel.function("SyS_mount") ?,
kernel.function("sys_mount") ?,
kernel.function("compat_sys_mount") ?
try
probe syscall.mount =
kernel.function("compat_sys_mount") ?
kernel.function("SyS_mount") !,
kernel.function("sys_mount")
It all depends whether any of these sibling functions can call each other.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-21 16:13 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2009-02-23 10:00 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli @ 2009-02-23 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fche at redhat dot com; +Cc: systemtap
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 03:27:03PM -0000, fche at redhat dot com wrote:
> It all depends whether any of these sibling functions can call each other.
Ran a few tests to verify this. Except for sys_ioctl, there weren't
cases where both the SyS_ and compat_sys_ were called for the same
instance.
New patch on the way with the compat_sys_ option first. If there are no
objections, I'll commit the patch to git tomorrow.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-21 16:13 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2009-02-22 22:22 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-23 9:47 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-22 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-21 16:09 -------
A simple test with SyS_access and compat_sys_access shows that both routines are
indeed hit on a ssh for example.
I did have the compat_sys_foo first idea but there are more complex cases where
the ! construct isn't that easy to use - sys_getdents and variants. What's the
easy way to handle them? Split them into multiple entries?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-22 22:22 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-23 9:47 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-23 13:28 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-23 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-21 16:13 -------
The other complex case is when a specific config may cause one or more syscalls
to not exist in the kernel eg., sys_kexec_load, currently handled with a ?
With the ! construct, how do we prevent a hard failure when the call is absent?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-23 9:47 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-23 13:28 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-23 13:29 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-24 10:10 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-23 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-23 09:56 -------
Subject: Re: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that
use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 03:27:03PM -0000, fche at redhat dot com wrote:
> It all depends whether any of these sibling functions can call each other.
Ran a few tests to verify this. Except for sys_ioctl, there weren't
cases where both the SyS_ and compat_sys_ were called for the same
instance.
New patch on the way with the compat_sys_ option first. If there are no
objections, I'll commit the patch to git tomorrow.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-23 13:28 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-23 13:29 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
2009-02-24 10:10 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-23 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-23 10:00 -------
Created an attachment (id=3758)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3758&action=view)
Fix the syscall tapset for architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #3756 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/9876] Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
2009-02-20 12:38 [Bug tapsets/9876] New: Syscall tapset broken on architectures that use SYSCALL_WRAPPERS ananth at in dot ibm dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-23 13:29 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-02-24 10:10 ` ananth at in dot ibm dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ananth at in dot ibm dot com @ 2009-02-24 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-02-24 03:15 -------
Commit 132c337cb in the upstream git tree.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|systemtap at sources dot |ananth at in dot ibm dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9876
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread