From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 11 23:22:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D895CC7; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kn-bremen.de (gelbbaer.kn-bremen.de [78.46.108.116]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397D21DFA; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:22:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kn-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id D114C1E007B7; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:22:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (noident@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1BNKnek091439; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:20:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de) Received: (from nox@localhost) by enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id s1BNKmTe091438; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:20:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox) From: Juergen Lock Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:20:48 +0100 To: "Wojciech A. Koszek" Subject: Re: CFT: Re: linux libusb again, I made an updated port... Message-ID: <20140211232048.GA91008@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> References: <20140207201208.GA59695@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140207204928.GD12994@FreeBSD.org> <20140208084546.GA74796@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140209025624.GE12994@FreeBSD.org> <20140209135905.GA13024@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140210041845.GG12994@FreeBSD.org> <20140210231109.GA54389@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140211195650.GI12994@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140211195650.GI12994@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: bapt@FreeBSD.org, hselasky@FreeBSD.org, Juergen Lock , freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:22:45 -0000 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:56:50PM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:11:09AM +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:06:27AM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2014, at 04:18 , Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > > > > > > > On nie, lut 09, 2014 at 02:59:06 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:56:24AM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > > > >>> On sob, lut 08, 2014 at 09:45:46 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: > > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:49:28PM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > > > >>>>> On pi??, lut 07, 2014 at 09:12:08 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: > > > >>>>>> Hi! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> This came up on irc so I tried to build a linux libusb port (before > > > >>>>>> I learned about ports/146895), mine uses linux_base-gentoo-stage3 > > > >>>>>> like linux_kdump with a src/lib/libusb head snapshot so it's more > > > >>>>>> up to date than wkoszek's build (ports/146895), and it's really > > > >>>>>> easy to update it again. Also maybe it can be used as linux > > > >>>>>> libusb-1.0.so too; I didn't actually test it tho. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Should this be committed? Is wkoszek's version better since it > > > >>>>>> also builds on < 10.x? Comments welcome... > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> wkoszek's version: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=146895 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Mine: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/linux_libusb.shar > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Distfile: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/distfiles/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.tar.bz2 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 10/amd64 package: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/packages/10amd64/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.txz > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> (built via: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> poudriere bulk -v -j 10amd64 -p custom devel/linux_libusb > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> - btw for some reason the dependency emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage3 > > > >>>>>> doesn't build for 10i386 in poudriere bulk, I get a pkg segfault. bapt > > > >>>>>> Cc'd...) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Juergen, > > > >>>> Hi! > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> What would be the reason for this update? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> My stuff may be out of date, but it was all tested and working. I verified > > > >>>>> it with Linux'ish lsusb(1) and USB-based FPGA JTAG programmer, for which > > > >>>>> this stuff was written. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> I was just thinking an updated version may be useful, but if it's > > > >>>> already working for everyone maybe less so... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Or would it work as a linux libusb-1.0.so too? I know the libusb 1.0 > > > >>>> stuff added some functions since 9.x at least... maybe hps would know > > > >>>> (Cc'd.) > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Juergen, > > > >>> > > > >>> I think this package is useful and is looking for maintainer, so if you have > > > >>> time and energy, I'm OK with upgrading it, but I suggest testing it first. > > > >>> Bjoern might be interested too. > > > >>> > > > >> You mean bz@ ? Cc'd. I tried testing lsusb from debian sid but it printed > > > >> nothing, neither with my nor with your older version, but maybe it's just > > > >> `too new' for our current linuxolator. > > > > > > > > I assume you have at least 1 USB device while trying this. I don't remember > > > > exactly, but while trying within Linuxolator, you may need devfs/procfs to > > > > be mounted under Linuxolator's root directory. > > > > > > My understanding and from looking at trace is that if we cannot find it in /compat/linux we ale search in /; so no need for an extra mount unless maybe you run chrooted. > > > > > > > > > > So you'll have to figure this out. > > > > > > > > Does it return with 0 exit code? > > > > > > > > If not, lsusb should be simple enough to let you place printf() all over the > > > > place and understand out when it's failing. > > > > > > For me the problem was a clock_gettime() call in the libusb which my glibc did not provide. That made all things fail (silently) until I used linux ?rtld" tracing to see the unresolved symbol from libusb/the commercial 3rd party software dynamically loading libusb. > > > > > And my linux_kdump ends like this: > > > > 35607 lsusb CALL munmap(0x28247000,0x8000) > > 35607 lsusb RET munmap 0 > > 35607 lsusb CALL linux_open(0x28090c31,0,0x28081e00) > > 35607 lsusb NAMI "/compat/linux/dev/usbctl" > > 35607 lsusb NAMI "/dev/usbctl" > > 35607 lsusb RET linux_open 3 > > 35607 lsusb CALL linux_ioctl(0x3,0xffe5 ,0xffffc5d8) > > 35607 lsusb RET linux_ioctl 0 > > 35607 lsusb CALL close(0x3) > > 35607 lsusb RET close 0 > > 35607 lsusb CALL linux_exit_group(0x1) > > 35607 lsusb UNKNOWN(11) > > > > and the exit code is 1, so I guess it's failing on an unhandled > > syscall or something like that. > > Juergen > > Can you send the full trace with all eventual child processes? If you could > copy&paste: > > open libusb > for each bus > for each device > open device > > to a separate program, we could make it libusb/Linuxolator regression test. > This would also help us match ptrace<->line number output. > There are no child processes and it seems it doesn't even get to enumerate buses, i.e. the /dev/usbctl above is the only usb-related thing it opens. I've put the full kdump here: http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/lsusb.kdump.txt.xz (don't be surprised about the libz.so.1 path, the one from fc10 was too old so I had to point LD_LIBRARY_PATH at debian's one I copied.) > Which FreeBSD are you using? > 10.0-r. > This may indicate some relationship with > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=141439 > Well at least 10.0 should have that fix already. Maybe I can find an older (fc10?) lsusb later... Thanx, Juergen