On Fri 2021-04-09 18:52:52, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Let's make kernel stacktraces easier to identify by including the build
> ID[1] of a module if the stacktrace is printing a symbol from a module.
> This makes it simpler for developers to locate a kernel module's full
> debuginfo for a particular stacktrace. Combined with
> scripts/decode_stracktrace.sh, a developer can download the matching
> debuginfo from a debuginfod[2] server and find the exact file and line
> number for the functions plus offsets in a stacktrace that match the
> module. This is especially useful for pstore crash debugging where the
> kernel crashes are recorded in something like console-ramoops and the
> recovery kernel/modules are different or the debuginfo doesn't exist on
> the device due to space concerns (the debuginfo can be too large for
> space limited devices).
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index 59f094fa6f74..4bf869f6c944 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/stat.h>
> +#include <linux/buildid.h>
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
> #include <linux/cache.h>
> #include <linux/kmod.h>
> @@ -367,6 +368,9 @@ struct module {
> /* Unique handle for this module */
> char name[MODULE_NAME_LEN];
>
> + /* Module build ID */
> + unsigned char build_id[BUILD_ID_SIZE_MAX];
Do we want to initialize/store the ID even when
CONFIG_STACKTRACE_BUILD_ID is disabled and nobody would
use it?
Most struct module members are added only when the related feature
is enabled.
I am not sure how it would complicate the code. It is possible
that it is not worth it. Well, I could imagine that the API
will always pass the buildid parameter and
module_address_lookup() might do something like
#ifndef CONFIG_STACKTRACE_BUILD_ID
static char empty_build_id[BUILD_ID_SIZE_MAX];
#endif
if (modbuildid) {
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STACKTRACE_BUILD_ID))
*modbuildid = mod->build_id;
else
*modbuildid = empty_build_id;
IMHO, this is primary a call for Jessica as the module code maintainer.
Otherwise, I am fine with this patch. And it works as expected.
Best Regards,
Petr
