Em Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:30:08PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:36:54 -0700
> Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > > 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",
> >
> > I would say something like this.
> >
> > Consider identifying the final function used at run time and set the
> > probe directly on that.
> >
> > I think that's more useful to the user.
>
> Hmm, would you mean the default function which may be used for the symbol?
Humm, I think he means that the user must somehow, knowing details
involved in picking the final function, probe that one instead of the
IFUNC one, right Andi?
- Arnaldo
> Let me check how we can find it.
