From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109273 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2018 01:05:18 -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 109237 invoked by uid 48); 20 Feb 2018 01:05:13 -0000 From: "mysecondaccountabc at gmail dot com" To: systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug runtime/22847] ARM OABI syscall tracing issues Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 01:05:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: systemtap X-Bugzilla-Component: runtime X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mysecondaccountabc at gmail 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/msg00057.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D22847 --- Comment #11 from Gustavo Moreira = --- (In reply to David Smith from comment #10) > (In reply to Gustavo Moreira from comment #9) >=20 > > > With that patch added, does the following return the correct value? > > >=20 > > > # stap -ve 'kernel.function("sys_socketcall").call { printf("%s - %d\= n", > > > ppfunc(), _stp_syscall_nr()) }' -c test_program > >=20 > > I've added "probe" at the beginning and changed the syscall to "sys_con= nect" > > because it doesn't use sys_socketcall.=20 >=20 > Sorry, I misremembered how your kernel worked. >=20 > > # stap -ve 'probe kernel.function("sys_connect").call { printf("%s - %d= \n", > > ppfunc(), _stp_syscall_nr()) }' -c ./ex_socket_OABI=20 > > Pass 1: parsed user script and 452 library scripts using > > 40896virt/33624res/4948shr/28920data kb, in 4780usr/1090sys/5869real ms. > > Pass 2: analyzed script: 1 probe, 2 functions, 97 embeds, 0 globals usi= ng > > 77520virt/70912res/5528shr/65544data kb, in 13480usr/11970sys/25472real= ms. > > Pass 3: translated to C into > > "/tmp/stapSl5Rx9/stap_195c43dcde9908a38abbe97ece0f593b_53976_src.c" usi= ng > > 77520virt/71040res/5656shr/65544data kb, in 1670usr/10930sys/12604real = ms. > > Pass 4: compiled C into "stap_195c43dcde9908a38abbe97ece0f593b_53976.ko= " in > > 58570usr/20570sys/73572real ms. > > Pass 5: starting run. > > SyS_connect - 32916 > > Connected > > Pass 5: run completed in 370usr/1000sys/2316real ms. > >=20 > > However, the result seems to be the same. I've patched the file in the > > installation directory (/usr/share/systemtap/runtime/syscall.h). I don't > > think SystemTap needs to be completely recompiled again, right? The cha= nge > > should be included when it compiles the LKM in the above stap execution. >=20 > Right. Hmm. >=20 > I wonder if we've got to handle both ABIs at once (more like a 32-bit ia32 > executable on a x86_64 kernel). Is CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT defined in your con= fig > file? exactly, CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT=3Dy. I think so, because when that is enabled t= he kernel is able to execute both sort of ABI binaries. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.