Re: Function fingerprinting for useful backtraces in absence of debuginfo

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

Hi Martin,

I see this was more directed at gcc people but I hope I can reply some.


On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:32:31 +0200, Martin Milata wrote:
>  * The name of the function, if the corresponding binary is compiled
>    with function symbols (as is the case with the libraries) together
>    with offset into the function.

This is not true for static functions in the libraries:

==> 26.c <==
extern void f (void (*) (void));
static void i (void) {}
int main (void) { f (i); return 0; }

==> 26l.c <==
static void g (void (*h) (void)) { h (); }
void f (void (*h) (void)) { g (h); }

gcc -o 26l.so 26l.c -Wall -shared -fPIC -s; gcc -o 26 26.c -Wall -g ./26l.so; gdb -nx ./26 -ex 'b i' -ex r -ex bt
#0  i () at 26.c:2
#1  0x00007ffff7dfc53e in ?? () from ./26l.so
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#2  0x00007ffff7dfc558 in f () from ./26l.so
#3  0x00000000004005c8 in main () at 26.c:3

glibc in Fedora packaging is probably the only exception; it has the .symtab
section in the main rpm.  All the other libraries have .symtab only in the
debuginfo rpm.


>  (Call graph properties)
>  * List of the library functions called.

That is the functions called via .plt section - either from different libraries
or within the same library (if it does not use direct calls like glibc does).
Hopefully this should not change, I agree.


>  * Whether the function calls some other functions in the file.

Various functions get inlined during various optimizations levels and compiler
changes, it also changes with gcc -flto.


>  * Whether the function calls itself.
>  (Presence of types of instructions)

Tail call optimizations (call+ret -> jump) change this so -O0 vs. -O2 code will
be definitely different; But -O2 compilation of slightly different code
hopefully should have the same signature.


>  * Conditional jumps based on equality test/signed comparison/unsigned
>    comparison.

This is the exact target of the gcc -fprofile-* optimizations; AFAIK SuSE uses
it a lot (I had some negative results trying to apply it for gdb packaging).
That is to invert the jump conditional and reshuffle the code around so that in
>50% cases it does not jump depending on "random" benchmark data during each
>build.


> So the question is: How to improve this function fingerprinting
> scheme? Is there a better approach for coredump duplicate detection?

I am a bit skeptical against such function content comparison but sure it does
not have to be perfect.


There may be soon cheap enough to run gdbserver on the local core file with
the recent optimization by Paul Pluzhnikov to be finished:
	Re: [patch] Implement qXfer:libraries for Linux/gdbserver
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-08/msg00291.html
But I do not have any benchmark numbers now to support it.


Thanks,
Jan