* Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> [2020-07-09 17:07:31]:
> Reported-by: Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/probe-event.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> index 1e95a336862c..671176d39569 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,11 @@ static int find_alternative_probe_point(struct debuginfo
> *dinfo,
> address = sym->start;
> else
> address = map->unmap_ip(map, sym->start) - map->reloc;
> + if (sym->type == STT_GNU_IFUNC) {
> + pr_warning("Warning: The probe address (0x%lx) is in a
> GNU indirect function.\n"
> + "This may not work as you expected unless you
> intend to probe the indirect function.\n",
> + (unsigned long)address);
> + }
Are these GNU indirect functions possible in kernel? If not we could move
this warning under if (uprobes)
Also instead of printing the address, can we print the pp->function?
> break;
> }
> if (!address) {
>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
