[Bug runtime/22847] ARM OABI syscall tracing issues

["mysecondaccountabc at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22847

--- Comment #11 from Gustavo Moreira <mysecondaccountabc at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to David Smith from comment #10)
> (In reply to Gustavo Moreira from comment #9)
> 
> > > With that patch added, does the following return the correct value?
> > > 
> > > # stap -ve 'kernel.function("sys_socketcall").call { printf("%s - %d\n",
> > > ppfunc(), _stp_syscall_nr()) }' -c test_program
> > 
> > I've added "probe" at the beginning and changed the syscall to "sys_connect"
> > because it doesn't use sys_socketcall. 
> 
> Sorry, I misremembered how your kernel worked.
> 
> > # stap -ve 'probe kernel.function("sys_connect").call { printf("%s - %d\n",
> > ppfunc(), _stp_syscall_nr()) }' -c ./ex_socket_OABI 
> > 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 using
> > 77520virt/70912res/5528shr/65544data kb, in 13480usr/11970sys/25472real ms.
> > Pass 3: translated to C into
> > "/tmp/stapSl5Rx9/stap_195c43dcde9908a38abbe97ece0f593b_53976_src.c" using
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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 change
> > should be included when it compiles the LKM in the above stap execution.
> 
> Right. Hmm.
> 
> 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 config
> file?

exactly, CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT=y. I think so, because when that is enabled the
kernel is able to execute both sort of ABI binaries.

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