[RFT PATCH -next v3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Fix "Failed to find blacklist" error on ia64 and ppc64

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2014/06/20 9:37), Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 20:20 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/06/19 20:01), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Ah, those messages should be shown in dmesg when booting if it doesn't work,
>>>>>>> because the messages are printed by initialization process of kprobe blacklist.
>>>>>>> So, reproducing it is just enabling CONFIG_KPROBES and boot it.
>>>>>> Well,  we don't get those messages on Power, since the kallsyms has the
>>>>>> entries for ".function_name". The correct way to verify is, either  :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, that seems another issue on powerpc. Is that expected(and designed)
>>>>> behavior?
>>>> AFAIK, yes, it is.
>>>> To be more precise :
>>>>
>>>> we have 'foo' and '.foo' for a function foo(), where 'foo' points to the
>>>> function_entry and '.foo' points to the actual function.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see. So if we run
>>>
>>>   func_ptr p = foo;
>>>   return p == kallsyms_lookup_name(".foo");
>>>
>>> it returns true.
>>
>> One more thing I should know, is the address of ".function_name" within the
>> kernel text? In other words, does kernel_text_address() return true for that
>> address? If not, it's easy to verify the address.
> 
> Yes. That is the text address, kernel_text_address() should definitely return
> true.
> 
> On 64-bit, ABIv1, "foo" points to the function descriptor, in the ".opd"
> section.
> 
> ".foo" points to the actual text of the function, in ".text".

Hmm, I misunderstood that. Anyway, we can verify it by kernel_text_address().

> 
> On 64-bit, ABIv2, "foo" points to the text in ".text". There are no dot
> symbols.

OK, in that case, kernel_text_address() check is still available. :)

Thank you,


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com