On 26/06/15 15:23, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +0100, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 24/06/15 19:17, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Commit 922d0e4d9f04 ("perf tools: Adjust symbols in VDSO") changed the
>>> ELF symbol parsing so that the vDSO is treated the same as ET_EXEC and
>>> ET_REL binaries despite being an ET_DYN.
>>>
>>> This causes objdump, which expects relative addresses, not to produce
>>> any output in conjunction with perf annotate, which cheerfully passes
>>> absolute addresses when trying to disassemble vDSO functions.
>>>
>>> This patch avoids marking the vDSO as requiring adjustment of symbol
>>> addresses, allowing the relative program counter to be used instead.
>>>
>>> Cc: Vladimir Nikulichev <n...@tbricks.com>
>>> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
>>> Reported-by: Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martse...@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Not sure why I've just started seeing this, but it appears to affect
>>> both x86 and arm64. Also, if I revert the patch above then the issue
>>> it supposedly fixed doesn't resurface. Maybe it was just masking another
>>> bug that has since been addressed?
>>
>> No the problem still appears on older kernels.
>
> Can you be more specific, please? I tried with a 3.16 kernel (that I happen
3.13 Ubuntu kernel
> to be running on my box) but perf doesn't even detect the vdso there,
> regardless of this patch.
Don't know what you mean about not detecting vdso
>
>> Probably could look at the vdso section/program headers to decide if it
>> needs adjustment or not.
>
> Did the x86 kernel change in this regard? Why isn't the vDSO always ET_DYN?
I guess, but it is ET_DYN
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
