From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68929 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2018 18:40:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 68715 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2018 18:40:04 -0000 From: "dsmith at redhat dot com" To: systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug kprobes/22772] missing kernel/module debuginfo for custom lt kernel Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:40:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: systemtap X-Bugzilla-Component: kprobes X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dsmith at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: systemtap at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2018-q1/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D22772 --- Comment #23 from David Smith --- (In reply to ocket8888 from comment #22) > (In reply to David Smith from comment #19) > > (In reply to ocket8888 from comment #18) > > > Created attachment 10776 [details] > > > specfile used to build all kernel packages > >=20 > > A Fedora/RHEL kernel specfile is typically the most complicated spec fi= le in > > the distro (or at least in the top 10). Since the kernel isn't a typica= l ELF > > executable, lots of semi-tricky things are done. > >=20 > > What would be more useful than the full specfile itself would be a diff > > between your specfile and the specfile you started with. If you just ad= ded a > > custom kernel patch for example or use a custom config file, that shoul= dn't > > effect the debuginfo generation. > >=20 > > Another thing to try. If you have access to your kernel's rpm build tre= e, > > you could look for a vmlinux or vmlinux.debug file and see if one exists > > that didn't get packaged. >=20 > Sorry I took so long to respond; I work for Comcast and the Super Bowl is= a > very busy time here. I asked the guy who built the kernel what specs he > modified, and he directed me to the "kernel-lt-4.4" and "kernel-ml-4.10" > specfiles. He says the 4.9-lt (the one I'm having issues with) is a > combination of the two, so I uploaded a diff with each of them. I'm not > totally sure how helpful that is, so if you want a diff with a specific, > standard kernel just let me know. I took a look at where you got your 'kernel-lt' from: I didn't realize kernel-lt wasn't from CentOS. Looking at , I see that they don't produce debuginfo RPMs. They have an open bug to do so, but I don't see any real activity on that bug: So, since the spec file you started with didn't produce good debuginfo RPMs= , it isn't surprising that your modified kernel-lt spec file doesn't produce good debuginfo RPMs. So, to fix this, you are going to have to dig into the CentOS kernel specfi= le: Look for the '%if %{with_debuginfo}' sections and copy them into your spec file. When you are done, you might even submit those changes back to elrepo.org. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.