Re: [Crash-utility] Fix in bt for ARM64

Thanks Dave, I did not look close enough on this issue and you are quite right that my fix has no effect. After some more testing I have found that the problem has to do with one of the modules. In the core file I investigate the kernel has six modules, where the wlan module (where the strange names occur) is the last one. If I have loaded the third module in the mod list, with "mod -s" or "mod -S" then I get the strange printouts in bt. If that module is not loaded, independently if other modules are loaded or not, then the bt printout is correct. I understand fully that this will be very difficult to investigate without the possibility to run and debug the example. I have tried to do that but have not found anything useful so far. Any hints what to look for? I will also try to understand if there is anything specific with the module itself.

I will by the way be out of office up to next Monday mainly due to national holidays here in Sweden. Jan Karlsson Senior Software Engineer System Assurance Sony Mobile Communications Tel: +46 703 062 174 jan.karlsson(a)sonymobile.com sonymobile.com -----Original Message----- From: crash-utility-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:crash-utility-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Dave Anderson Sent: den 11 maj 2015 17:49 To: Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development Subject: Re: [Crash-utility] Fix in bt for ARM64 ----- Original Message ----- > > > Hi Dave > > > > I found an ARM64 problem for bt when a function belongs to a module. > > > > Printout before fix given below: > > #16 [ffffffc0be96f8d0] __this_module at ffffffbffc15a2f8 [wlan] > #17 [ffffffc0be96f9b0] __this_module at ffffffbffc161b18 [wlan] > #18 [ffffffc0be96f9c0] __this_module at ffffffbffc16033c [wlan] > #19 [ffffffc0be96fa10] __this_module at ffffffbffc1630f8 [wlan] > #20 [ffffffc0be96fab0] __this_module at ffffffbffc156ff8 [wlan] > #21 [ffffffc0be96faf0] __this_module at ffffffbffc15aa58 [wlan] > #22 [ffffffc0be96fb20] __this_module at ffffffbffc15bfc8 [wlan] > #23 [ffffffc0be96fb60] __this_module at ffffffbffc115fac [wlan] > #24 [ffffffc0be96fb90] tasklet_action at ffffffc000223738 > #25 [ffffffc0be96fbb0] __do_softirq at ffffffc000222e94 > > > > Printout after fix: > > #16 [ffffffc0be96f8d0] dhd_bus_rx_frame at ffffffbffc15a2f8 [wlan] > #17 [ffffffc0be96f9b0] dhd_update_flow_prio_map at ffffffbffc161b18 > [wlan] > #18 [ffffffc0be96f9c0] dhd_update_flow_prio_map at ffffffbffc16033c > [wlan] > #19 [ffffffc0be96fa10] dhd_prot_process_ctrlbuf at ffffffbffc1630f8 > [wlan] > #20 [ffffffc0be96fab0] dhd_bus_ringbell at ffffffbffc156ff8 [wlan] > #21 [ffffffc0be96faf0] dhd_bus_console_in at ffffffbffc15aa58 [wlan] > #22 [ffffffc0be96fb20] dhd_bus_dpc at ffffffbffc15bfc8 [wlan] > #23 [ffffffc0be96fb60] dhd_sched_dpc at ffffffbffc115fac [wlan] > #24 [ffffffc0be96fb90] tasklet_action at ffffffc000223738 > #25 [ffffffc0be96fbb0] __do_softirq at ffffffc000222e94 > > > > From arm64.c: > > > > static int > > arm64_print_stackframe_entry(struct bt_info *bt, int level, struct > arm64_stackframe *frame) > > { > > char *name, *name_plus_offset; > ulong symbol_offset; > struct syment *sp; > struct load_module *lm; > char buf[BUFSIZE]; > > name = closest_symbol(frame->pc); > name_plus_offset = NULL; > > if (bt->flags & BT_SYMBOL_OFFSET) { > /*ADDED*/ > if (module_symbol(frame->pc, NULL, &lm, NULL, 0)) sp = > value_search_module(frame->pc, &symbol_offset); else /*END ADDED*/ > sp = value_search(frame->pc, &symbol_offset); > Hi Jan, I don't dispute that this is something to be fixed, but at the same time I don't quite understand (1) why it's happening, and (2) how your fix addresses it? The value_search() function does this if it's a module address: struct syment * value_search(ulong value, ulong *offset) { ... if (IS_VMALLOC_ADDR(value)) goto check_modules; ... check_modules: sp = value_search_module(value, offset); return sp; } And even if IS_VMALLOC_ADDR() above fails, it should just fail to find it in the base kernel symbols, and fall through to the value_search_module() call. Does something different happen in your case? I also note that in all cases "__this_module" is in the "(d)" section of each module, and typically is the last/highest symbol value of the module. So I'm confused as to how it's getting picked up as the closest value to all of the different text addresses in the wlan module? What does "sym -m wlan" look like? Thanks, Dave > > You probably also want to prevent calling module_symbol a second > time later in the function. > > > > Jan > > > > Jan Karlsson > > Senior Software Engineer > > System Assurance > > > > Sony Mobile Communications > > Tel: +46 703 062 174 > > jan.karlsson(a)sonymobile.com > > > > sonymobile.com > > > > > > > > -- > Crash-utility mailing list > Crash-utility(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility