Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:27:18 -0500 | From | David Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] ARM64: Add kernel probes(Kprobes) support |
| |
On 12/09/14 08:33, Steve Capper wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 08:53:03PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/12/04 20:29), Steve Capper wrote: >> >>>> I'd like to ask you to try my fix on your machine, with my reproducing >>>> methods. (do not use sytemtap nor perf, those can have other issues) >>>> >>> >>> Thank you Masami, >>> >>> I tried the following commands: >>> >>> echo "p:trace_event_buffer_lock_reserve >>> trace_event_buffer_lock_reserve" > >>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/kprobe_events >>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/kprobes/enable >>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_process_exec/enable >>> >>> The system appeared okay, I then cat'ed out: >>> # cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/kprobe_profile >>> trace_event_buffer_lock_reserve 25 25 >>> >>> I got similar output (i.e. no crashes) both with and without the >>> interrupt fix you recommended. >>> >>> I'm not sure how to interpret this, please let me know if you would >>> like me to run any other tests? >>> >>> (I did also try your proposed fix with perf + memcpy and that crashed >>> in a similar way as before). >> >> Hmm, then the bug is still there, and the bug may not be in the recursive >> call path... We need to find another suspicious code in the patch. >> > > Not sure if this is helpful, but the following also caused a crash for > me: > > echo "p:trace_event_buffer_lock_reserve trace_event_buffer_lock_reserve" > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/kprobe_events > echo "p:memcpy memcpy" >> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/kprobe_events > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/kprobes/enable > > [immediate crash] > > The crash point for me is in the arm64 ASID allocator, it again looks > like the interrupts are in an unexpected state. > (check_and_switch_context goes down the irqs disabled code path, I > think incorrectly). > > This occurred for me both with and without the proposed irq saving fix. > > I will do some more digging. >
Thanks, more information is good.
-dl
| |