Best Practice: Save or Ship Symbol Information for Native Libraries
kgibm 0600027VAP Visits (3426)
Some applications use native libraries (e.g. JNI; .so, .dll, etc.) to perform functions in native code (e.g. C/C++) rather than through Java code. This may involve allocating native memory outside of the Java heap (e.g. malloc, mmap). These libraries have to do their own garbage collection and application errors can cause native memory leaks, which can ultimately cause crashes, paging, etc. These problems are one of the most difficult classes of problems, and they are made even more difficult by the fact that native libraries are often "stripped" of symbol information.
Symbols are artifacts produced by the compiler and linker to describe the mapping between executable code and source code. For example, a library may have a function in the source code named "foo" and in the binary, this function code resides in the address range 0x10000000 - 0x10001000. This function may be executing, in which case the instruction register is in this address range, or if foo calls another function, foo's return address will be on the call stack. In both cases, a debugger or leak-tracker only has access to raw addresses (e.g. 0x100000a1). If there is nothing to tell it the mapping between foo and the code address ranges, then you'll just get a stack full of numbers, which usually isn't very interesting.
Historically, symbols have been stripped from executables for the following reasons: 1) to reduce the size of libraries, 2) because performance could suffer, and 3) to complicate reverse-engineering efforts. First, it's important to note that all three of these reasons do not apply to privately held symbol files. With most modern compilers, you can produce the symbol files and save them off. If there is a problem, you can download the core dump, find the matching symbols locally, and off you go.
Therefore, the first best practice is to always generate and save off symbols, even if you don't ship them with your binaries. When debugging, you should match the symbol files with the exact build that produced the problem. This also means that you need to save the symbols for every build, including one-off or debug builds that customers may be running, and track these symbols with some unique identifier to map to the running build.
Here are links for some operating systems on how to produce symbols without shipping them:
The second best practice is to consider shipping symbol files with your binaries if your requirements allow it. Some answers to the objections above include: 1) although the size of the distribution will be larger, this greatly reduces the time to resolve complex problems, 2) most modern compilers can create fully optimized code with symbols [A], and 3) reverse engineering requires insider or hacker access to the binaries and deep product knowledge; also, Java code is just as easy to reverse engineer as native code with symbols, so this is an aspect of modern programming and debugging. Benefits of shipping symbols include: 1) not having to store, manage, and query a symbol store or database each time you need symbols, 2) allow "on site" debugging without having to ship large core dumps, since oftentimes running a simple back trace or post-processing program on the same machine where the problem happened, with symbols, can immediately produce the desired information.
As always, your mileage may vary and you should fully test such a change, including a performance test.