Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64

[Alexander Potapenko]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM, James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/06/16 15:25, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:53:03PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:25:10AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:16:08PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> I built and booted (via EFI) a kernel with this feature enabled (also
>>>>>>> with the boot/Makefile change removed). I haven't tested the feature
>>>>>>> itself as such, as I'm not sure how to do that.
>>>>>> You can test it by running the test program from Documentation/kcov.txt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, I hadn't spotted that. If I get the chance I'll try to give that a
>>>>> go.
>>>>
>>>> I just had a go (with this applied atop of v4.7-rc3), and I get:
>>>>
>>>> root@ribbensteg:/home/nanook# ./kcov
>>>> mmap: No such device
>>>>
>>>> The device exists (it was able to open the fd, evidently):
>>>>
>>>> root@ribbensteg:/home/nanook# ls -al /sys/kernel/debug/kcov
>>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jan  1  1970 /sys/kernel/debug/kcov
>>>>
>>>> Strace show me:
>>>>
>>>> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/sys/kernel/debug/kcov", O_RDWR) = 3
>>>> ioctl(3, CHIOMOVE or CM_IOCGATR, 0x10000) = 0
>>>> mmap(NULL, 524288, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, 3, 0) = -1 ENODEV (No such device)
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't look like the error paths in kcov_mmap are hitting.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>> According to Dmitry (thanks, Dmitry!) this has regressed recently, but
>>> there's a pending patch that should probably fix the problem:
>>> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1605.2/04379.html
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer! With that applied, the program runs.
>>
>> However, it looks like I missed a warning from the kernel build system,
>> and my toolchain doesn't actually support -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc,
>> so I'm not going to be able to test that further.
>
> I dusted off a compiler that supports this, and ran the sample program under
> Documentation with the above unproxify patch.
>
> Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
I think it's time to ask now :)
If I receive "Tested-by" or "Acked-by" responses, do I need to send
out a patch adding them, or should I rely on the maintainer taking the
patch to the tree?
The first option reduces the amount of work done by the maintainer,
while the second one reduces the traffic in the list.
Sorry, I couldn't find the answer in the manuals.

Thank you,
Alex
>
> Thanks,
>
> James



-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-StraÃe, 33
80636 MÃnchen

GeschÃftsfÃhrer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg