This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
[Bug kprobes/22772] missing kernel/module debuginfo for custom lt kernel
- From: "ocket8888 at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: systemtap at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:23:12 +0000
- Subject: [Bug kprobes/22772] missing kernel/module debuginfo for custom lt kernel
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-22772-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22772
--- Comment #22 from ocket8888 <ocket8888 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to David Smith from comment #19)
> (In reply to ocket8888 from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 10776 [details]
> > specfile used to build all kernel packages
>
> A Fedora/RHEL kernel specfile is typically the most complicated spec file in
> the distro (or at least in the top 10). Since the kernel isn't a typical ELF
> executable, lots of semi-tricky things are done.
>
> What would be more useful than the full specfile itself would be a diff
> between your specfile and the specfile you started with. If you just added a
> custom kernel patch for example or use a custom config file, that shouldn't
> effect the debuginfo generation.
>
> Another thing to try. If you have access to your kernel's rpm build tree,
> you could look for a vmlinux or vmlinux.debug file and see if one exists
> that didn't get packaged.
Sorry I took so long to respond; I work for Comcast and the Super Bowl is a
very busy time here. I asked the guy who built the kernel what specs he
modified, and he directed me to the "kernel-lt-4.4" and "kernel-ml-4.10"
specfiles. He says the 4.9-lt (the one I'm having issues with) is a combination
of the two, so I uploaded a diff with each of them. I'm not totally sure how
helpful that is, so if you want a diff with a specific, standard kernel just
let me know.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.