[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aA_fYvTI7YRIy2k9@google.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:50 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>, Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>,
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@...gle.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@...cinc.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
Krzysztof Łopatowski <krzysztof.m.lopatowski@...il.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>,
Zixian Cai <fzczx123@...il.com>,
Steve Clevenger <scclevenger@...amperecomputing.com>,
Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@...el.com>,
Martin Liska <martin.liska@....com>,
Martin Liška <m.liska@...link.cz>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] perf dso: Move build_id to dso_id
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:46:40AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:15 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
[SNIP]
> > > @@ -1665,18 +1675,20 @@ bool dso__build_id_equal(const struct dso *dso, struct build_id *bid)
> > > void dso__read_running_kernel_build_id(struct dso *dso, struct machine *machine)
> > > {
> > > char path[PATH_MAX];
> > > + struct build_id bid;
> > >
> > > if (machine__is_default_guest(machine))
> > > return;
> > > sprintf(path, "%s/sys/kernel/notes", machine->root_dir);
> > > - if (sysfs__read_build_id(path, dso__bid(dso)) == 0)
> > > - dso__set_has_build_id(dso);
> > > + sysfs__read_build_id(path, &bid);
> > > + dso__set_build_id(dso, &bid);
> >
> > Why not check the return value anymore?
>
> Checking the return value was a mistake. For example if we have
> libc.so with a build ID and then it is replaced with a libc.so without
> a build ID then build ID wouldn't be updated previously as reading the
> build ID had failed - no value found.
I'm not sure if it updates the dso as a whole. This functions is to get
build-ID of the kernel and it seems we can skip this if it already has a
build-ID. But if sysfs__read_build_id() failed, it may have a garbage.
Do I miss something?
Thanks,
Namhyung
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > int dso__kernel_module_get_build_id(struct dso *dso,
> > > const char *root_dir)
> > > {
> > > char filename[PATH_MAX];
> > > + struct build_id bid;
> > > /*
> > > * kernel module short names are of the form "[module]" and
> > > * we need just "module" here.
> > > @@ -1687,9 +1699,8 @@ int dso__kernel_module_get_build_id(struct dso *dso,
> > > "%s/sys/module/%.*s/notes/.note.gnu.build-id",
> > > root_dir, (int)strlen(name) - 1, name);
> > >
> > > - if (sysfs__read_build_id(filename, dso__bid(dso)) == 0)
> > > - dso__set_has_build_id(dso);
> > > -
> > > + sysfs__read_build_id(filename, &bid);
> > > + dso__set_build_id(dso, &bid);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists