Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:45:09 -0500 From: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> To: Peter <pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 12.3-RC1 fails to compile perl,tcl86 (ipfw dtrace issue) Message-ID: <YZu7Bet6WUgQj8tS@nuc> In-Reply-To: <YZq%2BNlYyc8CVM/Fu@gate.intra.daemon.contact> References: <YZq%2BNlYyc8CVM/Fu@gate.intra.daemon.contact>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:46:30PM +0100, Peter wrote: > ## this seems not have arrived on the list at first send ## > > > dtrace: failed to establish error handler: "/usr/lib/dtrace/ipfw.d", > > line 106: failed to copy type of 'inp': Conflicting type is already defined > > > That file ipfw.d appears to be new in 12.3, but I'm clueless what > > the error means (and why it happens only to me). > > > I figured out why - I have "device dtraceall" in my kernel. This is > reproducible: > > > root@y12y:/ # dtrace -h > > dtrace: -h requires one or more scripts or enabling options > > root@y12y:/ # kldload dtraceall > > root@y12y:/ # dtrace -h > > dtrace: failed to establish error handler: "/usr/lib/dtrace/ipfw.d", line 106: failed to copy type of 'inp': Conflicting type is already defined > > root@y12y:/ # kldunload dtraceall > > root@y12y:/ # dtrace -h > > dtrace: -h requires one or more scripts or enabling options > > > But we do already have a bug (#254483) for this error. > > This bug was closed as duplicate to bug #258763, and the latter one > was closed as solved with a fix as stated here: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258763#c7 > > > But the fancy is: > > 1. that fix appears to have missed the releng/12.3 branch by three > days, so it is not in the code. But also > > 2. if applied, (*surprize*) that fix does NOT help! Hmm, that is indeed surprising. I'm able to reproduce the problem locally. > More than one thing is wrong here, and bug #254483 is *not* a > duplicate to #258763. > > The failure does NOT come from code covered by Mark Johnstons fix. > > It comes from a neighboring section where Integers are compared, and > it fails with a type conflict 8bit vs. 32bit. > > > The problem must be within /usr/lib/dtrace/ipfw.d - and indeed > it is (irrelevant parts stripped away): > > > typedef struct ipfw_match_info { > > struct mbuf *m; > > } ipfw_match_info_t; > > > > translator ipfw_match_info_t < struct ip_fw_args *p > { > > m = p->m; > > }; > > This does not work. Within the 'struct mbuf' definition is a > construct, that looks like this: > > > uint32_t m_type:8, /* type of data in this mbuf */ > > m_flags:24; /* flags; see below */ > > And it seems that is somehow the cause for the integer size conflict > (not implemented?) How did you come to that conclusion? > In the neighboring file /usr/lib/dtrace/mbuf.d this is done > distinctively: > > > translator mbufinfo_t < struct mbuf *p > { > > mbuf_addr = (uintptr_t)p; > > m_data = p->m_data; > > m_len = p->m_len; > > m_type = p->m_type & 0xff000000; > > m_flags = p->m_type & 0x00ffffff; > >}; > > So probably we should just duplicate that approach for ipfw. > > Or, could that definition be directly included and called? Does dtrace > allow one tranlation to call another? > I can't answer that, have never been that deep in dtrace - but I > really love the idea that we now get means to look into ipfw. Comes in > handy and at the right time. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YZu7Bet6WUgQj8tS>