Re: [DTrace-devel] [PATCH 4/4] test: Do not depend on ext4
Kris Van Hees <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.dtrace |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:18:20PM +0100, Nick Alcock via DTrace-devel wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2024, Eugene Loh stated:
>
> > E.g.,
> > Â Â Â $ uname -r
> > Â Â Â 5.15.0-205.149.5.1.el9uek.aarch64
> > Â Â Â $ sudo grep ext4_dir_operations /proc/kallmodsyms
> > Â Â Â Â ffffc45a59d9ee88 100 D ext4_dir_operations
> > Â Â Â Â $ sudo awk '/ext4/ { print NF }' /proc/kallmodsyms | uniq -c
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â 2342 4
> > Â Â Â $ sudo grep -w ext4 /proc/kallmodsyms
>
> Something is presumably wrong there -- ext4 should always be considered
> a built-in module if it's built in, that's what built-in modules *are*,
> things that might be being built as modules but aren't.
>
> i.e. this test is working as intended and pointing out a real bug :)
> whether it's one we care about is another matter.
>
> > So, lots of ext4 symbols (including ext4_dir_operations) but none of them are [ext4]. Bug in... kallmodsyms?
> >
> > On 10/25/24 17:16, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> >> I am not too sure about this patch... We are not using kallmodsyms anymore
> >> for newer kernels, and on older kernels that symbol certainly be listed as
> >> [ext4]. So, if ext4_dir_operations *is* in the ext4 module code (compiled in
> >> or loadable), then the proper ref to it would be ext4`ext4_dir_operations.
> >> So the test should be able to use that - if not, that seems like a bug rather
> >> than something to change in the test?
>
> Yes.
OK, I will mark it as NAK so it gets removed from my tracking.
> >> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:43:55AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> From: Eugene Loh <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> It is possible that there is no ext4 module, whether built-in or otherwise,
> >>> even if its symbols are present. E.g.,
>
> That wasn't true in the kallmodsyms world I wrote this for.
>
> >>> # grep ext4_dir_operations /proc/kallmodsyms
> >>> ffffc45a59d9ee88 100 D ext4_dir_operations
> >>> # grep -w ext4 /proc/kallmodsyms
> >>> #
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, in
> >>> ab883bae "tests, io, scalars: use kallsyms instead of kallmodsyms where possible"
> >>> we read:
> >>> scalars/tst.misc.x needs adjusting to check for the presence of the actual
> >>> symbols we are looking up, since the modules might well be built-in, and
> >>> thus not show up in /proc/kallsyms.
> >>>
> >>> With that patch, in test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.x, we check:
> >>> -if ! $(grep -qw ext4 /proc/kallmodsyms); then
> >>> +if ! grep -qw ext4_dir_operations /proc/kallsyms; then
> >>> exit 1
> >>> fi
> >>>
> >>> So it is possible for us to find
> >>> `ext4_dir_operations
> >>> but not
> >>> ext4`ext4_dir_operations
> >>>
> >>> Change the .d script to look simply for `ext4_dir_operations.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Eugene Loh <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.d | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.d b/test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.d
> >>> index 60edab45e..6a5f4ae2e 100644
> >>> --- a/test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.d
> >>> +++ b/test/unittest/scalars/tst.misc.d
> >>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> >>> BEGIN
> >>> {
> >>> printf("\nr_cpu_ids = 0x%x\n", `nr_cpu_ids);
> >>> - printf("ext4`ext4_dir_operations = %p\n", &ext4`ext4_dir_operations);
> >>> + printf("ext4`ext4_dir_operations = %p\n", &`ext4_dir_operations);
> >>> printf("isofs`isofs_dir_operations = %p\n", &isofs`isofs_dir_operations);
> >>> printf("vmlinux`major_names = %p\n", &vmlinux`major_names);
> >>> x = 123;
> >>> -- 2.43.5
> >>>
>
> --
> NULL && (void)
>
> _______________________________________________
> DTrace-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/dtrace-devel