This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
[Bug testsuite/10007] Some SystemTap tests need updates to handle SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
- From: "ananth at in dot ibm dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 26 Mar 2009 14:13:07 -0000
- Subject: [Bug testsuite/10007] Some SystemTap tests need updates to handle SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
- References: <20090326060823.10007.ananth@in.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com 2009-03-26 14:13 -------
Subject: Re: Some SystemTap tests need updates to
handle SYSCALL_WRAPPERS
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:56:26PM -0000, dsmith at redhat dot com wrote:
> I took a short look at this patch. Besides the testsuite changes, it looks like
> there is also an actual s390 syscall tapset change in there.
Thanks Dave! That small s390 syscall tapset change was to accomodate for
the missing sys32_mmap and old_mmap syscalls, which were failing to
resolve correctly. I don't have access to a s390 box right now to verify
exactly what their substitutes are. So, I envisage there may be a few
more changes once I am able to correctly fix the s390 specific issue.
> I'm a bit confused by the changes to systemtap.base/stmtvars.exp and
> systemtap.base/system_func.stp. Instead of changing
> 'kernel.function("sys_open")' to 'syscall.open', you changed it to
> 'kernel.function("do_sys_open")'. Why was this done?
Again, syscall wrappers issue. sys_open() will only exist as an inline
and SyS_open is what we need there. However, for that particular case, I
found it prudent to just change the probed function to one level down
(do_sys_open is called from sys_open irrespective of syscall wrappers).
> Other than those points, I guess I'm a bit worried that syscall tapset bugs are
> going to cause lots of (somewhat unrelated) testsuite failures. But, I don't
> see any easier solution to this problem.
Right. I wouldn't be surprised if the more mainstream 64bit
architectures also gain this feature in the future.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10007
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.