Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 May 2015 09:00:45 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] perf: __kmod_path__parse: deal with kernel module names in '[]' correctly. |
| |
Hi,
Sorry for being late, I forgot about this email..
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:28:51PM +0800, Wang Nan wrote: > On 2015/4/21 13:16, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Hi Wang, > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:33:10AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote: > >> Before patch ba92732e9808df679ddf75c5ea1c0caae6d7dce2 ('perf kmaps: > >> Check kmaps to make code more robust'), perf report and perf annotate > >> will segfault if trace data contains kernel module information like > >> this: > >> > >> # perf report -D -i ./perf.data > >> ... > >> 0 0 0x188 [0x50]: PERF_RECORD_MMAP -1/0: [0xffffffbff1018000(0xf068000) @ 0]: x [test_module] > >> ... > >> > >> # perf report -i ./perf.data --objdump=/path/to/objdump --kallsyms=/path/to/kallsyms > >> > >> perf: Segmentation fault > >> -------- backtrace -------- > >> /path/to/perf[0x503478] > >> /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x3545f)[0x7fb201f3745f] > >> /path/to/perf[0x499b56] > >> /path/to/perf(dso__load_kallsyms+0x13c)[0x49b56c] > >> /path/to/perf(dso__load+0x72e)[0x49c21e] > >> /path/to/perf(map__load+0x6e)[0x4ae9ee] > >> /path/to/perf(thread__find_addr_map+0x24c)[0x47deec] > >> /path/to/perf(perf_event__preprocess_sample+0x88)[0x47e238] > >> /path/to/perf[0x43ad02] > >> /path/to/perf[0x4b55bc] > >> /path/to/perf(ordered_events__flush+0xca)[0x4b57ea] > >> /path/to/perf[0x4b1a01] > >> /path/to/perf(perf_session__process_events+0x3be)[0x4b428e] > >> /path/to/perf(cmd_report+0xf11)[0x43bfc1] > >> /path/to/perf[0x474702] > >> /path/to/perf(main+0x5f5)[0x42de95] > >> /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf4)[0x7fb201f23bd4] > >> /path/to/perf[0x42dfc4] > >> > >> This is because __kmod_path__parse treats '[' leading names as kernel > >> name instead of names of kernel module. If perf.data contains build > >> information and the buildid of such modules can be found, the DSO of > >> it will be treated as kernel, not kernel module. > > > > Sorry if I missed some prior discussion on it, but any chance to treat > > them as modules instead of kernel binaries? > > Sorry, I tried but failed to understand your question. What this patch do > is to treat them as modules instead of kernel binaries (or binary? > since kernel is a whole binary and kernel modules are DSOs).
It seems I misunderstood your point. So this patch makes DSOs have correct dso_kernel_type, right? Then I'm fine with this change..
Thanks, Namhyung
| |