linux-kernel - Re: perf seg fault

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 17:10:43 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: perf seg fault

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 05:58:29PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Forgot to cc mailing list
> 
> On 12/05/20 5:50 pm, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I am getting a seg fault from your perf/core branch, as follows:
> > 
> > # perf record uname
> > Linux
> > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.005 MB perf.data (7 samples) ]
> > perf: Segmentation fault
> > Obtained 6 stack frames.
> > [0x4e75b4]
> > [0x5d1ad0]
> > [0x5c9860]
> > [0x4a6e5c]
> > [0x5cb39b]
> > [0x76c89f]
> > Segmentation fault
> > 
> > It goes away with --no-bpf-event:
> > 
> > # perf record --no-bpf-event uname
> > Linux
> > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.005 MB perf.data (7 samples) ]
> > #
> > 
> > kernel is from the same branch
> > 
> > # uname -a
> > Linux buildroot 5.7.0-rc2-00028-g0fdddf5a583a #165 SMP Tue May 12 16:27:53
> > EEST 2020 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > 
> > # perf version --build-options
> > perf version 5.6.g0fdddf5a583a
> >                  dwarf: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> >     dwarf_getlocations: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
> >                  glibc: [ on  ]  # HAVE_GLIBC_SUPPORT
> >                   gtk2: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_GTK2_SUPPORT
> >          syscall_table: [ on  ]  # HAVE_SYSCALL_TABLE_SUPPORT
> >                 libbfd: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
> >                 libelf: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBELF_SUPPORT
> >                libnuma: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> > numa_num_possible_cpus: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> >                libperl: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBPERL_SUPPORT
> >              libpython: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBPYTHON_SUPPORT
> >               libslang: [ on  ]  # HAVE_SLANG_SUPPORT
> >              libcrypto: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBCRYPTO_SUPPORT
> >              libunwind: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBUNWIND_SUPPORT
> >     libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> >                   zlib: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_ZLIB_SUPPORT
> >                   lzma: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LZMA_SUPPORT
> >              get_cpuid: [ on  ]  # HAVE_AUXTRACE_SUPPORT
> >                    bpf: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >                    aio: [ on  ]  # HAVE_AIO_SUPPORT
> >                   zstd: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_ZSTD_SUPPORT
> > 
> > 
> > Any thoughts?

hum, I don't see that, do you reproduce with DEBUG=1?
to get more verbose backtrace

jirka