RE: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/booke: Add kprobes support for booke style processors

2008-06-26 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Hi Kumar,

I confirmed these updated patches and found no issues
with my test. I acknowledge these patches for powerpc
kprobes booke support.

-Madhvesh

 -Original Message-
 From: Kumar Gala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:36 PM
 To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
 Cc: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/booke: Add kprobes support for 
 booke style processors
 
 This patch is based on work done by Madhvesh. R. Sulibhavi back in
 March 2007.
 
 We refactor some of the single step handling since it differs between
 classic and booke powerpc cores.
 
 Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---
  Documentation/kprobes.txt |1 +
  arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c |   25 +++--
  arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c   |   26 +-
  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
 index 6877e71..a79633d 100644
 --- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
 +++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
 @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ architectures:
  - ia64 (Does not support probes on instruction slot1.)
  - sparc64 (Return probes not yet implemented.)
  - arm
 +- ppc
 
  3. Configuring Kprobes
 
 diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c 
 b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
 index 74693d9..4ba2af1 100644
 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
 +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
 @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@
  #include asm/cacheflush.h
  #include asm/sstep.h
  #include asm/uaccess.h
 +#include asm/system.h
 +
 +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
 +#define MSR_SINGLESTEP   (MSR_DE)
 +#else
 +#define MSR_SINGLESTEP   (MSR_SE)
 +#endif
 
  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe) = NULL;
  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe_ctlblk, kprobe_ctlblk);
 @@ -53,7 +60,8 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
   ret = -EINVAL;
   }
 
 - /* insn must be on a special executable page on ppc64 */
 + /* insn must be on a special executable page on ppc64.  This is
 +  * not explicitly required on ppc32 (right now), but it 
 doesn't hurt */
   if (!ret) {
   p-ainsn.insn = get_insn_slot();
   if (!p-ainsn.insn)
 @@ -100,7 +108,11 @@ static void __kprobes 
 prepare_singlestep(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
* possible we'd get the single step reported for an 
 exception handler
* like Decrementer or External Interrupt */
   regs-msr = ~MSR_EE;
 - regs-msr |= MSR_SE;
 + regs-msr |= MSR_SINGLESTEP;
 +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
 + regs-msr = ~MSR_CE;
 + mtspr(SPRN_DBCR0, mfspr(SPRN_DBCR0) | DBCR0_IC | DBCR0_IDM);
 +#endif
 
   /*
* On powerpc we should single step on the original
 @@ -163,7 +175,8 @@ static int __kprobes 
 kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
   kprobe_opcode_t insn = *p-ainsn.insn;
   if (kcb-kprobe_status == KPROBE_HIT_SS 
   is_trap(insn)) {
 - regs-msr = ~MSR_SE;
 + /* Turn off 'trace' bits */
 + regs-msr = ~MSR_SINGLESTEP;
   regs-msr |= kcb-kprobe_saved_msr;
   goto no_kprobe;
   }
 @@ -404,10 +417,10 @@ out:
 
   /*
* if somebody else is singlestepping across a probe point, msr
 -  * will have SE set, in which case, continue the 
 remaining processing
 +  * will have DE/SE set, in which case, continue the 
 remaining processing
* of do_debug, as if this is not a probe hit.
*/
 - if (regs-msr  MSR_SE)
 + if (regs-msr  MSR_SINGLESTEP)
   return 0;
 
   return 1;
 @@ -430,7 +443,7 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct 
 pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
* normal page fault.
*/
   regs-nip = (unsigned long)cur-addr;
 - regs-msr = ~MSR_SE;
 + regs-msr = ~MSR_SINGLESTEP; /* Turn off 
 'trace' bits */
   regs-msr |= kcb-kprobe_saved_msr;
   if (kcb-kprobe_status == KPROBE_REENTER)
   restore_previous_kprobe(kcb);
 diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
 index 4b5b7ff..b463d48 100644
 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
 +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
 @@ -1030,21 +1030,29 @@ void SoftwareEmulation(struct pt_regs *regs)
 
  #if defined(CONFIG_40x) || defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
 
 -void DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long debug_status)
 +void __kprobes DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned 
 long debug_status)
  {
   if (debug_status  DBSR_IC) {   /* instruction completion */
   regs-msr = ~MSR_DE;
 +
 + /* Disable instruction completion */
 + mtspr(SPRN_DBCR0, mfspr(SPRN_DBCR0)  ~DBCR0_IC);
 + /* Clear the instruction completion event */
 + mtspr(SPRN_DBSR, DBSR_IC

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-20 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Kumar Gala wrote on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:15 PM
 To: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
  No!!, this code cannot be removed. My tests fail
  while doing the probe test for do_gettimeofday and __kmalloc.
  I get Oops and Segfault. I think i had got similar results
  in my initial port using 2.6.26.39. Here is the log...
 
 What is that test.  Can you send it to me.  Its not clear to me why  
 this is an issue.

My test code is very simple and it is added at the
end of this mail. Brief steps include..

1. Build k-007.c and k-008.c as kernel modules
2. Insert the k-008.ko first 
3. Insert k-007.ko
4. Do any operation like ls
5. Ooops will be seen followed by Segv


-Madhvesh

=
//k-008.c test code

#include linux/module.h
#include linux/init.h
#include linux/kprobes.h
#include linux/kallsyms.h
 
static struct kprobe k_008_kp1;
 
static void __exit k_008_exit_probe(void)
{
unregister_kprobe(k_008_kp1);
}
 
static int k_008_pre_handler(struct kprobe *k_008_kp1, struct pt_regs
*p)
{
return 0;
}
 
static int __init k_008_init_probe(void)
{

/* Registering a kprobe */
k_008_kp1.pre_handler = (kprobe_pre_handler_t)
k_008_pre_handler;
 
k_008_kp1.symbol_name = do_gettimeofday;
 
if( register_kprobe(k_008_kp1) 0 ) {
printk(k-008.c: register_kprobe is failed\n);
return -1;
}
 
register_kprobe(k_008_kp1);
 
return 0;
}
 
module_init(k_008_init_probe);
module_exit(k_008_exit_probe);
 
MODULE_DESCRIPTION(Kprobes test module);
MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);

=
//k-007.c test code

static struct kprobe k_007_kp, k_007_kp1;
int k_007_kmalloc_count = 0;
int k_007_kfree_count = 0;
 
static int k_007_kmalloc_hndlr(struct kprobe *kpr, struct pt_regs *p)
{
k_007_kmalloc_count++;
return 0;
}
 
static int k_007_kfree_hndlr(struct kprobe *kpr, struct pt_regs *p)
{
k_007_kfree_count++;
return 0;
}
 
static int __init k_007_kmf_init(void)
{
k_007_kp.pre_handler = k_007_kmalloc_hndlr;
k_007_kp1.pre_handler = k_007_kfree_hndlr;
 
k_007_kp.symbol_name = __kmalloc;
k_007_kp1.symbol_name = kfree;
 
if( (register_kprobe(k_007_kp) 0) ||
(register_kprobe(k_007_kp1) 0) ) {
printk(k-007.c: register_kprobe is failed\n);
return -1;
}
 
return 0;
}
 
static void __exit k_007_kmf_exit(void)
{
printk(%\n\n);
printk(kmalloc count is %d \n, k_007_kmalloc_count);
printk(kfree count is %d \n, k_007_kfree_count);
printk(\n\n\n%%\n);
unregister_kprobe(k_007_kp);
unregister_kprobe(k_007_kp1);
printk(KERN_INFO k-007 exiting...\n);
}
 
module_init(k_007_kmf_init);
module_exit(k_007_kmf_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
===







---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-12 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Kumar Gala wrote Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:36 PM
 To: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
 linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; Paul Mackerras
 Subject: Re: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e
 
...

 -
  arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c |   35 ++ 
  +
  arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S |2 +-
  arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c   |   26 +-
  3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 
 Your patch got line wrapped by your mailer.  Take a look at  
 Documentation/email-clients.tx

Yes, i need to correct my emailer (long pending)

 
  static void __kprobes prepare_singlestep(struct kprobe *p, struct
  pt_regs *regs)
  {
  +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
  +   regs-msr = ~(MSR_EE); /* Turn off 'Externel Interrupt' bits */
  +   regs-msr = ~(MSR_CE); /* Turn off 'Critical Interrupt' bits */
  +   regs-msr |= MSR_DE;
 
 can we remove MSR_EE and MSR_CE here?

Ah! yes? interrupts are enabled while executing the trap
instruction in ppc unlike int3 of x86 where interupts are 
disabled. kprobe_handler already handles the reentrancy with 
nmissed count. I think this code can be removed and 
I will confirm after my test.


-Madhvesh


---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-11 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Hi Kumar,

I could switch to different version of binutils and
boot the recent git for ebony target. The kprobes
booke patches attached below got applied and
i didnot see any issues.  These patches can be 
now pushed to main line?

Below is the revised patch set after addressing some 
cleanups in traps.c and bug fixes to kprobes.c discussed 
earlier. Also added the support to Documentation/kprobes.txt 
and KRETPROBES check in powerpc/Kconfig file.

-Madhvesh

-
arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c |   35 +++
 arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S |2 +-
 arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c   |   26 +-
 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Index: b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
===
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -35,6 +35,21 @@
 #include asm/sstep.h
 #include asm/uaccess.h
 
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_4xx) || defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
+#define single_stepping(regs)  (current-thread.dbcr0  DBCR0_IC)
+#define clear_single_step(regs)(current-thread.dbcr0 =
~DBCR0_IC)
+#else
+#define single_stepping(regs)  ((regs)-msr  MSR_SE)
+#define clear_single_step(regs)((regs)-msr = ~MSR_SE)
+#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
+#define MSR_SINGLESTEP (MSR_DE)
+#else
+#define MSR_SINGLESTEP (MSR_SE)
+#endif
+
 DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe *, current_kprobe) = NULL;
 DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kprobe_ctlblk, kprobe_ctlblk);
 
@@ -53,7 +68,8 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct
ret = -EINVAL;
}
 
-   /* insn must be on a special executable page on ppc64 */
+   /* insn must be on a special executable page on ppc64.  This is
+* explicitly not required on ppc32 (right now), but it doesn't
hurt */
if (!ret) {
p-ainsn.insn = get_insn_slot();
if (!p-ainsn.insn)
@@ -95,7 +111,14 @@ void __kprobes arch_remove_kprobe(struct
 
 static void __kprobes prepare_singlestep(struct kprobe *p, struct
pt_regs *regs)
 {
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
+   regs-msr = ~(MSR_EE); /* Turn off 'Externel Interrupt' bits */
+   regs-msr = ~(MSR_CE); /* Turn off 'Critical Interrupt' bits */
+   regs-msr |= MSR_DE;
+   mtspr(SPRN_DBCR0, mfspr(SPRN_DBCR0) | DBCR0_IC | DBCR0_IDM);
+#else
regs-msr |= MSR_SE;
+#endif
 
/*
 * On powerpc we should single step on the original
@@ -158,7 +181,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru
kprobe_opcode_t insn = *p-ainsn.insn;
if (kcb-kprobe_status == KPROBE_HIT_SS 
is_trap(insn)) {
-   regs-msr = ~MSR_SE;
+   regs-msr = ~MSR_SINGLESTEP; /* Turn
off 'trace' bits */
regs-msr |= kcb-kprobe_saved_msr;
goto no_kprobe;
}
@@ -398,7 +421,7 @@ out:
 * will have SE set, in which case, continue the remaining
processing
 * of do_debug, as if this is not a probe hit.
 */
-   if (regs-msr  MSR_SE)
+   if (single_stepping(regs))
return 0;
 
return 1;
@@ -421,7 +444,7 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struc
 * normal page fault.
 */
regs-nip = (unsigned long)cur-addr;
-   regs-msr = ~MSR_SE;
+   regs-msr = ~MSR_SINGLESTEP; /* Turn off 'trace' bits
*/
regs-msr |= kcb-kprobe_saved_msr;
if (kcb-kprobe_status == KPROBE_REENTER)
restore_previous_kprobe(kcb);
Index: b/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S
===
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S
@@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_UNIFIED_ID
  *
  * flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop)
  */
-_GLOBAL(__flush_icache_range)
+_KPROBE(__flush_icache_range)
 BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
blr /* for 601, do nothing */
 END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_COHERENT_ICACHE)
Index: b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
===
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
@@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ void SoftwareEmulation(struct pt_regs *r
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_40x) || defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
 
-void DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long debug_status)
+void __kprobes DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long
debug_status)
 {
if (debug_status  DBSR_IC) {   /* instruction completion */
regs-msr = ~MSR_DE;
@@ -1041,6 +1041,12 @@ void DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs
mtspr(SPRN_DBCR0, mfspr(SPRN_DBCR0) 
~DBCR0_IC);
/* Clear the instruction completion

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-09 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Kumar Gala wrote on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:16 PM
 To: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
 linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; Paul Mackerras
 Subject: Re: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

..snip
 
 
  I think the block code under CONFIG_BOOKE may not
  be required now if exception cleanup fixes address the stack
  problem which i had explained in my port. I have to look into
  exception fix patches and confirm about these changes. Can
  you please provide me the thread where exception cleanup
  is posted as i haven't tracked the list from long time.
 
 http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-May/056457.html
 
 What was the original thinking about why you had to enable 
 MSR_EE and  
 MSR_CE?

I found that this code is redundant and it was added while debugging
the flags status during my port. This is a bug since it modifies the MSR

status and enables the critical and external bits which is not supposed
to.
The interrupts status should be kept back to original state without
enabling
interrupt bits after executing the post_handler. So this change is not
valid
and it can be taken out.

The code within the prepare_single_step() is already doing the job 
of disabling interrupts and setting bits required for single step and
hence
no additional changes are required for Book-e version of kprobes.

I confirmed the above changes in my local tree and found no issues
for kprobes, jprobes and kretprobes. But this testing is done using
2.6.22.y+ppc arch.

Once after fixing the binutils-2.17 issue i am facing for latest kernel,

i will retest and inform if any problems to new patches. 

-madhvesh



---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-03 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Kumar Gala wrote on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:01 AM
 This is a patch that adds kprobes support for book-e style debug.  Its
 based on the patch posted by Madhvesh and assumes the 
 exception cleanup
 that I've already posted.

Thanks for your forward port of my previous kprobes patches.
Few months back i did a port to 2.6.22.y but using ppc arch.
As part of 2.6.22 port, i had to retain the debug exception handling 
fixes in DebugException and head_booke.h. I have to look into
exception cleanup fixes posted by you.


 

 @@ -124,6 +147,10 @@ static void __kprobes 
 set_current_kprobe(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs,
   struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb)
  {
   __get_cpu_var(current_kprobe) = p;
 +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
 + regs-msr |= (MSR_EE); /* Turn on 'External Interrupt' bits */
 + regs-msr |= (MSR_CE); /* Turn on 'Critical Interrupt' bits */
 +#endif
   kcb-kprobe_saved_msr = regs-msr;
  }

I think the block code under CONFIG_BOOKE may not 
be required now if exception cleanup fixes address the stack
problem which i had explained in my port. I have to look into 
exception fix patches and confirm about these changes. Can
you please provide me the thread where exception cleanup
is posted as i haven't tracked the list from long time.

 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
 +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
 @@ -1030,10 +1030,34 @@ void SoftwareEmulation(struct pt_regs *regs)
 
  #if defined(CONFIG_40x) || defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
 
 -void DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long debug_status)
 +void __kprobes DebugException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned 
 long debug_status)
  {
   if (debug_status  DBSR_IC) {   /* instruction completion */
   regs-msr = ~MSR_DE;
 +
 +#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
 + /* Disable instruction completion */
 + mtspr(SPRN_DBCR0, mfspr(SPRN_DBCR0)  ~DBCR0_IC);
 + /* Clear the instruction completion event */
 + mtspr(SPRN_DBSR, DBSR_IC);
 +
 + /*
 +  * On Book E and perhaps other processsors, 
 singlestep is
 +  * handled on the critical exception stack.  This causes
 +  * current_thread_info() to fail, since it locates the
 +  * thread_info by masking off the low bits of 
 the current
 +  * stack pointer.  We work around this issue by copying
 +  * the thread_info from the kernel stack before calling
 +  * kprobe_post_handler, and copying it back afterwards.
 +  * On most processors the copy is avoided since
 +  * exception_thread_info == thread_info.
 +  */

The above comment will not be valid now as stack copy is removed.


Below is the other change what i have in my kprobes ported code. 

@@ -180,9 +180,7 @@ void __kprobes arch_disarm_kprobe(struct
 
 void __kprobes arch_remove_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
 {
-   mutex_lock(kprobe_mutex);
free_insn_slot(p-ainsn.insn,0);
-   mutex_unlock(kprobe_mutex);
 }
 
This change is mainly to fix some build issues while working
with lttng patches. I think this is coming from sched-devel git
posted from here http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/9/159
So the above changes are not required as mainline tree
still uses global mutex. This needs to be addressed in future.

Kumar, i would like to test the updated kprobes patches on my
ebony target using latest kernel. But i am facing build issues using
2.6.26.rc3 for powerpc arch while using the ebony configuration.
I tried it using paulus git tree, but could not succeed. If you have
any ideas on any stable version of latest tree where ebony config
can be built using powerpc arch, please let me know.

Thanks
Madhvesh



---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-03 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
 -Original Message-
 From: Kumar Gala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:08 PM
 To: Josh Boyer
 Cc: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Paul Mackerras
 Subject: Re: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e
 

 This looks like the binutils problem that cell was having and I  
 believe Alan Modra fixed:
 
 http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg8.html
 
Thanks, is it posible to get latest binutils binary which
is applied with this fix? If i just upgrade binutils, will
it solve this problem or i have to rebuild gcc etc etc..

-madhvesh


---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-03 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
 From: Josh Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:49 PM
 To: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
 Cc: Kumar Gala; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
 Paul Mackerras
 Subject: Re: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e
 
 Um, weird.  What version of binutils and gcc are you using?

binutils- 2.17.50
gcc- 4.1.2

-madhvesh


---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-03 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
Josh Boyer wrote on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:22 PM
 What build issues?  Ebony should build fine for 2.6.26-rc3, unless
 you're trying to apply this patchset to it without the other 
 patches it
 requires.

I am trying without kprobes patches. I get build error
as below

--
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .bss lma 0xc034f000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section `.text' can't be allocated in
segment 0
/usr/local/powerpc-linux/bin/powerpc-linux-objcopy:
./vmlinux.strip.28275: Bad value
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .text lma 0xc000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .ref.text lma 0xc024e000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .devinit.text lma 0xc024f860
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .devexit.text lma 0xc0253624
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .rodata lma 0xc0254000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .pci_fixup lma 0xc02ebcc8 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __ksymtab lma 0xc02ec280 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __ksymtab_gpl lma 0xc02f0c58
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __kcrctab lma 0xc02f2620 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __kcrctab_gpl lma 0xc02f4b0c
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __ksymtab_strings lma 0xc02f57f0
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __param lma 0xc0302d74 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __ex_table lma 0xc0304000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __bug_table lma 0xc0305780 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .init.text lma 0xc0309000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .exit.text lma 0xc0321010 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .init.data lma 0xc0321bd4 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .init.setup lma 0xc03253e0 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .initcall.init lma 0xc032568c
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .con_initcall.init lma 0xc03258c4
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section __ftr_fixup lma 0xc03258d0 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .machine.desc lma 0xc0326000
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .data lma 0xc0327000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .data.init_task lma 0xc0348000
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .data.page_aligned lma 0xc034a000
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .data.cacheline_aligned lma
0xc034d000 overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .data.read_mostly lma 0xc034d100
overlaps previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section .bss lma 0xc034f000 overlaps
previous sections
BFD: ./vmlinux.strip.28275: section `.text' can't be allocated in
segment 0
/usr/local/powerpc-linux/bin/powerpc-linux-objcopy:
./vmlinux.strip.28275: Bad value
make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/treeImage.ebony] Error 1
rm arch/powerpc/boot/ebony.dtb
make: *** [zImage] Error 2
--


 
 You'll need to use either my git tree with Kumar's exception series
 applied, or use Kumar's tree.  The kprobes code is 2.6.27 material,
 so .26-rc3 (or -rc4) is too old.

I will try with kumar's git repository

-Madhvesh


---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

RE: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e

2008-06-03 Thread Sulibhavi, Madhvesh 
 -Original Message-
 From: Josh Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:17 PM
 To: Sulibhavi, Madhvesh
 Cc: Kumar Gala; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
 Paul Mackerras
 Subject: Re: [RFC] Kprobes for book-e
 A newer binutils should work just fine.  Also, and older one would
 likely work too.  I use either 2.15 or 2.18.

thanks,  will try with any one of this
 
 josh
 
 P.S.  You should really get rid of that disclaimer message at the
 bottom of your emails.  You're sending to a public list so it makes no
 sense.
This message is annoying for anyone. I don't have much
control on its removal and in some lists, it was accepted 
and i just used..
I will have to switch my replies..

-madhvesh


---
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or 
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or 
telephone and destroy the original message. - This mail is sent via Sony Asia 
Pacific Mail Gateway.
---

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev