Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic tracing support for m68k

[Tomas Glozar]

Hi Jean-Michel,

po 2. 12. 2024 v 13:53 odesílatel Jean-Michel Hautbois
<jeanmichel.hautbois@xxxxxxxxxx> napsal:
>
> Thanks, I will cook a patch !
>

Thanks!

> > As of the FOPTS changes: are those necessary for rtla to build, or
> > were you just using them for easier debugging? AFAIK rtla shouldn't
> > depend on unwind tables or stack protection for functionality.
>
> Well, my toolchain does not support it, so it fails at link time:
>    LINK    /home/yocto/Projects/wabtec/linux/tools/tracing/rtla/rtla
> /opt/m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc_sdk-buildroot/bin/../lib/gcc/m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc/13.3.0/../../../../m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc/bin/ld:
> /tmp/ccih6k6Z.ltrans0.ltrans.o: in function `err_msg':
> /home/yocto/Projects/wabtec/linux/tools/tracing/rtla/src/utils.c:30:(.text+0x1a0):
> undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard'
> /opt/m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc_sdk-buildroot/bin/../lib/gcc/m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc/13.3.0/../../../../m68k-buildroot-linux-uclibc/bin/ld:
> /home/yocto/Projects/wabtec/linux/tools/tracing/rtla/src/utils.c:39:(.text+0x1e0):
> undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard'
>   <snip>
>
> That's why I removed this option.
>

Sorry, I misread the diff. I thought you were adding options, but you
are just removing  -fstack-protector-strong, right? I believe rtla
should check for the feature first before adding
-fstack-protector-strong, like perf does in
tools/perf/Makefile.config:

ifeq ($(feature-stackprotector-all), 1)
 CORE_CFLAGS += -fstack-protector-all
endif

The feature-stackprotector-all does a test build, if you have a
toolchain where building with -fstack-protector-all is broken for any
reason, it will return 0. You can try doing something similar for
rtla.

Tomas


> >>
> >> But it is not enough, as executing rtla fails with a segfault.
> >> I can dump a core, but I could not manage to build gdb for my board so I
> >> can't debug it (I don't know how to debug a coredump without gdb !).
> >>
> >> JM
> >>
> >
> > I have seen a similar libtraceevent-related rtla segfault recently on
> > ARM64, which was fixed by updating libtraceevent to a version that
> > includes the fix. Such issues are caused by the files for kernel
> > tracepoint tracefs having different contents on different
> > architectures, exposing bugs. I see Steven has already fixed one of
> > the issues on m68k [2].
>
> I will try to use the very last versions of both libtracefs and
> libtracevent and see if it is still happening !
>
> Thanks !
> JM
>