From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <systemtap-return-25885-listarch-systemtap=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 64778 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2018 16:03:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <systemtap.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:systemtap-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:systemtap@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:systemtap-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 64715 invoked by uid 48); 20 Feb 2018 16:03:22 -0000
From: "dsmith at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: systemtap@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug runtime/22847] ARM OABI syscall tracing issues
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:03:00 -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: 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: <bug-22847-6586-FhahZipzDG@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-22847-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-22847-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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/msg00058.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D22847

--- Comment #12 from David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Gustavo Moreira from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Smith from comment #10)
> > I wonder if we've got to handle both ABIs at once (more like a 32-bit i=
a32
> > executable on a x86_64 kernel). Is CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT defined in your c=
onfig
> > file?
>=20
> exactly, CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT=3Dy. I think so, because when that is enabled=
 the
> kernel is able to execute both sort of ABI binaries.

OK, that makes more sense - I should have realized that earlier. Try the
following patch (which tries to use the kernel's syscall_get_nr()) with *bo=
th*
ABIs and see what syscall numbers you get:

=3D=3D=3D=3D
diff --git a/runtime/syscall.h b/runtime/syscall.h
index 5ed019869..2b551f16f 100644
--- a/runtime/syscall.h
+++ b/runtime/syscall.h
@@ -169,7 +169,11 @@
 static inline long
 _stp_syscall_get_nr(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
+#ifdef CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT
+       return syscall_get_nr(task, regs);
+#else
        return regs->ARM_r7;
+#endif
 }

 #elif defined(__mips__)
=3D=3D=3D=3D

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.