Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] selftests/bpf: Fix compile if backtrace support missing in libc

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:39 AM Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Use backtrace functions only with glibc and otherwise provide stubs in
> test_progs.c. This avoids compile errors (e.g. with musl libc) like:
>
>   test_progs.c:13:10: fatal error: execinfo.h: No such file or directory
>      13 | #include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace */
>         |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>   test_progs.c: In function 'crash_handler':
>   test_progs.c:1034:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'backtrace' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    1034 |         sz = backtrace(bt, ARRAY_SIZE(bt));
>         |              ^~~~~~~~~
>   test_progs.c:1045:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'backtrace_symbols_fd' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    1045 |         backtrace_symbols_fd(bt, sz, STDERR_FILENO);
>         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Fixes: 9fb156bb82a3 ("selftests/bpf: Print backtrace on SIGSEGV in test_progs")
> Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> index 60c5ec0f6abf..f6cfc6a8e8f0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> @@ -10,7 +10,6 @@
>  #include <sched.h>
>  #include <signal.h>
>  #include <string.h>
> -#include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace */
>  #include <sys/sysinfo.h> /* get_nprocs */
>  #include <netinet/in.h>
>  #include <sys/select.h>
> @@ -19,6 +18,14 @@
>  #include <bpf/btf.h>
>  #include "json_writer.h"
>
> +#ifdef __GLIBC__
> +#include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace */
> +#else
> +#define backtrace(...) (0)
> +#define backtrace_symbols_fd(bt, sz, fd) \
> +       dprintf(fd, "<backtrace not supported>\n", bt, sz)
> +#endif

First, let's define backtrace() and backtrace_symbols_fd() as proper
functions, not a macro?

And second, what if we then make those functions __weak, so they
provide default implementations if libc doesn't provide those
functions?

This parts seems unavoidable, though:

#ifdef __GLIBC__
#include <execinfo.h>
#endif


> +
>  static bool verbose(void)
>  {
>         return env.verbosity > VERBOSE_NONE;
> --
> 2.34.1
>





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux