linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: disasm: prefer symsrc

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]

Message-ID: <4b420b265a6d4c298315807725734a31@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:48:23 +0000
From: duchangbin <changbin.du@...wei.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
CC: duchangbin <changbin.du@...wei.com>, Peter Zijlstra
	<peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Arnaldo Carvalho de
 Melo" <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Nathan
 Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa
	<jolsa@...nel.org>, "Ian Rogers" <irogers@...gle.com>, "Liang, Kan"
	<kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: disasm: prefer symsrc_filename for filename

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 01:26:39PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 13/06/24 12:43, duchangbin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:15:28AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> On 13/06/24 09:35, Changbin Du wrote:
> >>> If we already found a debugging version when loading symbols for that dso,
> >>> then use the same file for disasm instead of looking up in buildid-cache.
> >>
> >> In the past, there have been cases where the debugging version has not
> >> worked for reading object code.  I don't remember the details, but the
> >> symbols and debugging information was OK while the object code was not.
> >>
> >> In general, using anything other than the file that was actually executed
> >> for reading object code seems like a bad idea.
> >>
> > Is this a platform specific issue? AFAIK, the binary code in debugging and
> > non-debugging version should be identical. 
> 
> "should be" != "guaranteed to be".  Simpler to avoid the issue and
> stick with the file that was actually executed.  We already support
> having separate symbol sources, so there should not really be a
> problem.
>
ok, so for vdso I think we can flow the kernel part in dso__disassemble_filename.
I'll add vdso processing here.

> 

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du