Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > Philippe,
> > >
> > > you recently said there is a bug in the x86_64 support when syscall
> > > tracing is enabled. Now I think I stepped on it as well: In order to
> > > validate my APIC frequency patches for that arch, I wanted to use LTTng
> > > there. But as soon as I start the trace, the latency test fails to run,
> > > prematurely exiting due to a segfault.
> > Exactly what Gilles sees on his box too, latency segfaulting at startup.
> > On mine, the kernel does not even boot.
> > Gdb and the kernel say that user
> > > land jumped to address 0, I just yet failed to find out where they come
> > > from. I strongly assume LTTng enables syscall tracing, because its
> > > entry/exit instrumentations are inside the hook function
> > > (syscall_trace_entry/leave).
> > >
> > > Do you have any further details on your tracing issue? Does may
> > > observation correlates with yours?
> > Quite frankly, I did not dig the issue that far yet, but yes, my first
> > impression is that something is broken in the syscall return path (or
> > entry?), and it shows when the return path to user-space is diverted in
> > some way, either for security auditing, or likely for tracing like
> > you've just reported.
> From what I have read in some comments, the syscall auditing function
> kmallocs some memory that is kfreed on syscall return. Obviously, this
> can not work with Xenomai.
Just a short update on this: Right before going mad over this bug, I
recalled some posting on ltt-dev by Mathieu Desnoyers about x86_64 and
some syscall tracing race. With this patch  applied, things work
again as they should! Then I followed his thread on LKML and tried the
second version of the patch , but that one does not work for us. Now
I wonder (but didn't analyse yet) if the first patch just moves some
race window around or actually fixes the bug for us?
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
Xenomai-core mailing list