lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 05:31:11 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> CC: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, wangnan0@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] perf probe: Show better error message when failed to find variable On 2015/05/11 22:44, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:35:27AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >> Em Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:02:47PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu: >>> On 2015/05/11 19:15, He Kuang wrote: >>>> On 2015/5/11 17:50, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> * He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015/5/11 17:30, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>>>>> After this patch: >>>>>>>> $ perf probe --add 'generic_perform_write+118 bytes' >>>>>>>> Failed to find the location of bytes at this address. >>>>>>> What does this sentence mean? I thought 'address' means 'location of >>>>>>> bytes'. So the address identifies the location and obviously we know >>>>>>> that. So this message wants to say something else. >>>>>> 'generic_perform_write' is a function name, while 'bytes' is a local >>>>>> variable in this function. Maybe the variable I chose make you confused. >> >>>>>> This maybe clear: >>>>>> Failed to find the location of 'bytes' at this address. >>>>> Yeah, absolutely! This highlights the importance of putting >>>>> user-supplied symbols into quotes and such. >> >>>>> Maybe even write: >> >>>>> Failed to find the location of the 'bytes' variable at this address. >> >>> OK, He, could you also include this fix? >> >> I agree with the change, makes things clearer, will do the change >> myself. If He has any objection to that, I can fix things up before >> pushing it to Ingo, Opps, I missed this... > > So, this is the end result: > > - if (ret == -ENOENT || ret == -EINVAL) > - pr_err("Failed to find the location of %s at this address.\n" > - " Perhaps, it has been optimized out.\n", pf->pvar->var); > - else if (ret == -ENOTSUP) > + if (ret == -ENOENT || ret == -EINVAL) { > + pr_err("Failed to find the location of the '%s' variable at this address.\n" > + " Perhaps it has been optimized out.\n" > + " Use -V with the --range option to show '%s' location range.\n", > + pf->pvar->var, pf->pvar->var); > + } else if (ret == -ENOTSUP) OK, I ack this change. Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Linux Technology Research Center, System Productivity Research Dept. Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering Hitachi, Ltd., Research & Development Group E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists