All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tixy@linaro.org (Jon Medhurst (Tixy))
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v19 10/11] ARM: kprobes: check register usage for probed instruction.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:01:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1421161268.4215.56.camel@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420457384-77449-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:29 +0800, Wang Nan wrote:
> This patch utilizes previous introduced checker to check register usage
> for probed ARM instruction and saves it in a mask. Futher patch will
> use such information to avoid simuation or emulation.

There's a couple of spelling mistakes above and minor grammar nitpicks,
my suggestion to improve those would be to add the bits in [] in the
following...

  This patch utilizes [the] previous[ly] introduced checker to check
  register usage for probed ARM instruction and saves it in a mask. [A]
  fu[r]ther patch will use such information to avoid simu[l]ation or
  emulation.

My comments on the code below are mostly suggestions on how to simplify
things, though the code is already quite re is one bug.

> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h          |  10 +++
>  arch/arm/probes/decode.c               |   7 ++
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c  |   2 +-
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h     |   1 +
>  5 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> index f0a1ee8..27b65b7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ struct arch_probes_insn {
>  	probes_insn_singlestep_t	*insn_singlestep;
>  	probes_insn_fn_t		*insn_fn;
>  	int stack_space;
> +
> +	/* Use 1 bit for a register. */
> +#define REG_NO_USE	(0)
> +#define REG_USE		(1)

No need for () around the 0 and 1

> +#define __register_usage_flag(n, f)	((f) << (n))
> +#define __clean_register_flag(m, n)	((m) & (~(1 << (n))))
> +#define __set_register_flag(m, n, f)	(__clean_register_flag(m, n) | __register_usage_flag(n, f))
> +#define set_register_nouse(m, n)	do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_NO_USE);} while(0)
> +#define set_register_use(m, n)		do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_USE);} while(0)

All these macros seem a bit convoluted to me, and I don't think it makes
things any clearer than open coding a bit set operation like

	|= 1 << reg

especially as I don't thing those macros will end up getting much use.

> +	unsigned long register_usage_flag;

To nit-pick, as this isn't a single flag I would add an 's' to make the
name plural, i.e. 'register_usage_flags'

>  };
>  
>  #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/decode.c b/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> index f9d7c42..40f9402 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> @@ -435,6 +435,13 @@ probes_decode_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
>  	 */
>  	asi->stack_space = 0;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Similay to stack_space, register_usage_flag is filled by

Typo, s/Similay/Similarly/

> +	 * checkers. Its default value is set to ~0, which is 'all
> +	 * registers are used', to prevent any potential optimization.
> +	 */
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = ~(0UL);

No need for () around 0UL

> +
>  	if (emulate)
>  		insn = prepare_emulated_insn(insn, asi, thumb);
>  
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> index 4fedd4c..26e435b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> @@ -340,4 +340,4 @@ const union decode_action kprobes_arm_actions[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
>  	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.decoder = kprobe_decode_ldmstm}
>  };
>  
> -const struct decode_checker *kprobes_arm_checkers[] = {arm_stack_checker, NULL};
> +const struct decode_checker *kprobes_arm_checkers[] = {arm_stack_checker, arm_regs_checker, NULL};
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> index f817663..1929225 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> @@ -97,3 +97,127 @@ const struct decode_checker arm_stack_checker[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
>  	[PROBES_STORE] = {.checker = arm_check_stack},
>  	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.checker = arm_check_stack},
>  };
> +
> +static enum probes_insn __kprobes arm_check_regs_nouse(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static void __arm_check_regs(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		const struct decode_header *h,
> +		int *quintuple)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	u32 regs = h->type_regs.bits >> DECODE_TYPE_BITS;
> +	probes_opcode_t mask, shifted;
> +
> +	memset(quintuple, 0xff, sizeof(int) * 5);

Not sure that filling with 0xff is a C standard compliant way of
initialising int's to a negative value. Anyway, memset isn't really
needed, see next comment.

> +	for (i = 0, shifted = insn, mask = 0xf; regs != 0;
> +			regs >>= 4, mask <<= 4, shifted >>= 4, i++)
> +		if (regs & 0xf)
> +			quintuple[i] = shifted & 0xf;

Looks a bit complicated, the last 6 lines could be more simply expressed
as:
	for (i = 0; i < 5; regs >>= 4, insn >>= 4, i++)
		quintuple[i] = regs & 0xf ? insn & 0xf : -1;

Though I think that this function may be a bit overkill anyway, it is
only really needed in one place, so may as well be inlined there, that
is the function below... 

> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_normal(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	int quintuple[5], i;
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	__arm_check_regs(insn, h, quintuple);
> +	for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> +		int r = quintuple[i];
> +		if (r < 0)
> +			continue;
> +		set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, r);
> +	}
> +

The above can be as simply written without using _arm_check_regs like...

	u32 regs = h->type_regs.bits >> DECODE_TYPE_BITS;
	int i;

	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
	for (i = 0; i < 5; regs >>= 4, insn >>= 4, i++)
		if (regs & 0xf)
			asi->register_usage_flag |= 1 << (insn & 0xf);


> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_ldmstm(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	unsigned int reglist = insn & 0xffff;
> +	unsigned int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
> +	int i;
> +

Think you forgot to clear asi->register_usage_flag here, it will still
contain 0xffffffff set by from probes_decode_insn(). However, we don't
need this if we follow my next suggestion.

> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rn);
> +	for (i = 0; reglist > 0; i++, reglist >>= 1)
> +		if (reglist & 1)
> +			set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, i);

The preceding 5 lines are equivalent to

	asi->register_usage_flag = reglist | (1 << rn);

so how about we just use that?

> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_mov_ip_sp(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	/* should be 'mov ip, sp' */
> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, 12);
> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, 13);

register_usage_flag needs setting to zero before setting the flags. Or
we could just write this function as

	/* Instruction is 'mov ip, sp' i.e. 'mov r12, r13' */
	asi->register_usage_flag = (1 << 12) | (1<< 13);

> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + *                                    | Rn |Rt/d|         | Rm |
> + * LDRD (register)      cccc 000x x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx
> + * STRD (register)      cccc 000x x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx
> + *                                    | Rn |Rt/d|         |imm4L|
> + * LDRD (immediate)     cccc 000x x1x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx
> + * STRD (immediate)     cccc 000x x1x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx
> + *
> + * Such instructions access Rt/d and its next register, so different
> + * from others, a specific checker is required for Rt/d and Rt2/d2.
> + */
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_ldrdstrd(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	int quintuple[5], rn, rdt, rm;
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	__arm_check_regs(insn, h, quintuple);
> +
> +	rn = quintuple[4];
> +	rdt = quintuple[3];
> +	rm = quintuple[0];
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rn);
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rdt);
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rdt + 1);
> +	if (rm >= 0)
> +		set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rm);
> +

We can avoid most of this code if we reuse arm_check_regs_normal and
then add in the use of rdt+1, i.e. this function can be simply...

	int rdt = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
	arm_check_regs_normal(insn, asi, h);
	asi->register_usage_flag |= 1 << (rdt + 1);


> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +
> +const struct decode_checker arm_regs_checker[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
> +	[PROBES_EMULATE_NONE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_nouse},
> +	[PROBES_SIMULATE_NOP] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_nouse},
> +	[PROBES_MRS] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_SATURATING_ARITHMETIC] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL1] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL2] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL_ADD_LONG] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL_ADD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LOAD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LOAD_EXTRA] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_STORE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_STORE_EXTRA] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_DATA_PROCESSING_REG] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_DATA_PROCESSING_IMM] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_SATURATE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_REV] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MMI] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_PACK] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_EXTEND] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_EXTEND_ADD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_BITFIELD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_ldmstm},
> +	[PROBES_MOV_IP_SP] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_mov_ip_sp},
> +	[PROBES_LDRSTRD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_ldrdstrd},
> +};
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> index bddfa0e..cf6c9e7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ extern const union decode_action stack_check_actions[];
>  
>  #ifndef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
>  extern const struct decode_checker arm_stack_checker[];
> +extern const struct decode_checker arm_regs_checker[];
>  #else
>  #endif
>  extern const struct decode_checker t32_stack_checker[];

I've made a lot, of suggestions for code changes, so I think it's best
if I follow up to this email with a new version of this patch which
applies them all so we can see what the bigger picture is...

-- 
Tixy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org>
To: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Cc: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
	lizefan@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 10/11] ARM: kprobes: check register usage for probed instruction.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:01:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1421161268.4215.56.camel@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420457384-77449-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:29 +0800, Wang Nan wrote:
> This patch utilizes previous introduced checker to check register usage
> for probed ARM instruction and saves it in a mask. Futher patch will
> use such information to avoid simuation or emulation.

There's a couple of spelling mistakes above and minor grammar nitpicks,
my suggestion to improve those would be to add the bits in [] in the
following...

  This patch utilizes [the] previous[ly] introduced checker to check
  register usage for probed ARM instruction and saves it in a mask. [A]
  fu[r]ther patch will use such information to avoid simu[l]ation or
  emulation.

My comments on the code below are mostly suggestions on how to simplify
things, though the code is already quite re is one bug.

> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h          |  10 +++
>  arch/arm/probes/decode.c               |   7 ++
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c  |   2 +-
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h     |   1 +
>  5 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> index f0a1ee8..27b65b7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ struct arch_probes_insn {
>  	probes_insn_singlestep_t	*insn_singlestep;
>  	probes_insn_fn_t		*insn_fn;
>  	int stack_space;
> +
> +	/* Use 1 bit for a register. */
> +#define REG_NO_USE	(0)
> +#define REG_USE		(1)

No need for () around the 0 and 1

> +#define __register_usage_flag(n, f)	((f) << (n))
> +#define __clean_register_flag(m, n)	((m) & (~(1 << (n))))
> +#define __set_register_flag(m, n, f)	(__clean_register_flag(m, n) | __register_usage_flag(n, f))
> +#define set_register_nouse(m, n)	do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_NO_USE);} while(0)
> +#define set_register_use(m, n)		do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_USE);} while(0)

All these macros seem a bit convoluted to me, and I don't think it makes
things any clearer than open coding a bit set operation like

	|= 1 << reg

especially as I don't thing those macros will end up getting much use.

> +	unsigned long register_usage_flag;

To nit-pick, as this isn't a single flag I would add an 's' to make the
name plural, i.e. 'register_usage_flags'

>  };
>  
>  #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/decode.c b/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> index f9d7c42..40f9402 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/decode.c
> @@ -435,6 +435,13 @@ probes_decode_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
>  	 */
>  	asi->stack_space = 0;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Similay to stack_space, register_usage_flag is filled by

Typo, s/Similay/Similarly/

> +	 * checkers. Its default value is set to ~0, which is 'all
> +	 * registers are used', to prevent any potential optimization.
> +	 */
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = ~(0UL);

No need for () around 0UL

> +
>  	if (emulate)
>  		insn = prepare_emulated_insn(insn, asi, thumb);
>  
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> index 4fedd4c..26e435b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c
> @@ -340,4 +340,4 @@ const union decode_action kprobes_arm_actions[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
>  	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.decoder = kprobe_decode_ldmstm}
>  };
>  
> -const struct decode_checker *kprobes_arm_checkers[] = {arm_stack_checker, NULL};
> +const struct decode_checker *kprobes_arm_checkers[] = {arm_stack_checker, arm_regs_checker, NULL};
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> index f817663..1929225 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c
> @@ -97,3 +97,127 @@ const struct decode_checker arm_stack_checker[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
>  	[PROBES_STORE] = {.checker = arm_check_stack},
>  	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.checker = arm_check_stack},
>  };
> +
> +static enum probes_insn __kprobes arm_check_regs_nouse(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static void __arm_check_regs(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		const struct decode_header *h,
> +		int *quintuple)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	u32 regs = h->type_regs.bits >> DECODE_TYPE_BITS;
> +	probes_opcode_t mask, shifted;
> +
> +	memset(quintuple, 0xff, sizeof(int) * 5);

Not sure that filling with 0xff is a C standard compliant way of
initialising int's to a negative value. Anyway, memset isn't really
needed, see next comment.

> +	for (i = 0, shifted = insn, mask = 0xf; regs != 0;
> +			regs >>= 4, mask <<= 4, shifted >>= 4, i++)
> +		if (regs & 0xf)
> +			quintuple[i] = shifted & 0xf;

Looks a bit complicated, the last 6 lines could be more simply expressed
as:
	for (i = 0; i < 5; regs >>= 4, insn >>= 4, i++)
		quintuple[i] = regs & 0xf ? insn & 0xf : -1;

Though I think that this function may be a bit overkill anyway, it is
only really needed in one place, so may as well be inlined there, that
is the function below... 

> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_normal(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	int quintuple[5], i;
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	__arm_check_regs(insn, h, quintuple);
> +	for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> +		int r = quintuple[i];
> +		if (r < 0)
> +			continue;
> +		set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, r);
> +	}
> +

The above can be as simply written without using _arm_check_regs like...

	u32 regs = h->type_regs.bits >> DECODE_TYPE_BITS;
	int i;

	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
	for (i = 0; i < 5; regs >>= 4, insn >>= 4, i++)
		if (regs & 0xf)
			asi->register_usage_flag |= 1 << (insn & 0xf);


> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_ldmstm(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	unsigned int reglist = insn & 0xffff;
> +	unsigned int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
> +	int i;
> +

Think you forgot to clear asi->register_usage_flag here, it will still
contain 0xffffffff set by from probes_decode_insn(). However, we don't
need this if we follow my next suggestion.

> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rn);
> +	for (i = 0; reglist > 0; i++, reglist >>= 1)
> +		if (reglist & 1)
> +			set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, i);

The preceding 5 lines are equivalent to

	asi->register_usage_flag = reglist | (1 << rn);

so how about we just use that?

> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_mov_ip_sp(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	/* should be 'mov ip, sp' */
> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, 12);
> +	set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, 13);

register_usage_flag needs setting to zero before setting the flags. Or
we could just write this function as

	/* Instruction is 'mov ip, sp' i.e. 'mov r12, r13' */
	asi->register_usage_flag = (1 << 12) | (1<< 13);

> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + *                                    | Rn |Rt/d|         | Rm |
> + * LDRD (register)      cccc 000x x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx
> + * STRD (register)      cccc 000x x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx
> + *                                    | Rn |Rt/d|         |imm4L|
> + * LDRD (immediate)     cccc 000x x1x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx
> + * STRD (immediate)     cccc 000x x1x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx
> + *
> + * Such instructions access Rt/d and its next register, so different
> + * from others, a specific checker is required for Rt/d and Rt2/d2.
> + */
> +static enum probes_insn arm_check_regs_ldrdstrd(probes_opcode_t insn,
> +		struct arch_probes_insn *asi,
> +		const struct decode_header *h)
> +{
> +	int quintuple[5], rn, rdt, rm;
> +	asi->register_usage_flag = 0;
> +	__arm_check_regs(insn, h, quintuple);
> +
> +	rn = quintuple[4];
> +	rdt = quintuple[3];
> +	rm = quintuple[0];
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rn);
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rdt);
> +        set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rdt + 1);
> +	if (rm >= 0)
> +		set_register_use(asi->register_usage_flag, rm);
> +

We can avoid most of this code if we reuse arm_check_regs_normal and
then add in the use of rdt+1, i.e. this function can be simply...

	int rdt = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
	arm_check_regs_normal(insn, asi, h);
	asi->register_usage_flag |= 1 << (rdt + 1);


> +	return INSN_GOOD;
> +}
> +
> +
> +const struct decode_checker arm_regs_checker[NUM_PROBES_ARM_ACTIONS] = {
> +	[PROBES_EMULATE_NONE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_nouse},
> +	[PROBES_SIMULATE_NOP] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_nouse},
> +	[PROBES_MRS] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_SATURATING_ARITHMETIC] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL1] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL2] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL_ADD_LONG] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MUL_ADD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LOAD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LOAD_EXTRA] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_STORE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_STORE_EXTRA] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_DATA_PROCESSING_REG] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_DATA_PROCESSING_IMM] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_SATURATE] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_REV] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_MMI] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_PACK] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_EXTEND] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_EXTEND_ADD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_BITFIELD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_normal},
> +	[PROBES_LDMSTM] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_ldmstm},
> +	[PROBES_MOV_IP_SP] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_mov_ip_sp},
> +	[PROBES_LDRSTRD] = {.checker = arm_check_regs_ldrdstrd},
> +};
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> index bddfa0e..cf6c9e7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ extern const union decode_action stack_check_actions[];
>  
>  #ifndef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
>  extern const struct decode_checker arm_stack_checker[];
> +extern const struct decode_checker arm_regs_checker[];
>  #else
>  #endif
>  extern const struct decode_checker t32_stack_checker[];

I've made a lot, of suggestions for code changes, so I think it's best
if I follow up to this email with a new version of this patch which
applies them all so we can see what the bigger picture is...

-- 
Tixy



  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-13 15:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-05 11:28 [PATCH v19 00/11] ARM: kprobes: OPTPROBES and other improvements Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:28 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 01/11] ARM: probes: move all probe code to dedicate directory Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09  2:19   ` [PATCH v20 " Wang Nan
2015-01-09  2:19     ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09  9:47     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09  9:47       ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09  9:50       ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09  9:50         ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09  2:28   ` [PATCH v19 " Wang Nan
2015-01-09  2:28     ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 02/11] ARM: kprobes: remove unused ARM decoder actions Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 11:50   ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-07 11:50     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 03/11] ARM: kprobes: introduces checker Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 04/11] ARM: kprobes: collects stack consumption for store instructions Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 05/11] ARM: kprobes: disallow probing stack consuming instructions Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 06/11] ARM: kprobes: Add test cases for " Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 07/11] kprobes: Pass the original kprobe for preparing optimized kprobe Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 08/11] ARM: kprobes: enable OPTPROBES for ARM 32 Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 13:01   ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-07 13:01     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09  6:37   ` [PATCH v20 " Wang Nan
2015-01-09  6:37     ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09 10:25     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09 10:25       ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09 10:55       ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09 10:55         ` Wang Nan
2015-01-09 16:35       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 16:35         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 17:28         ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09 17:28           ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09 17:57           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 17:57             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 19:18             ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09 19:18               ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-09  6:51   ` [PATCH v19 " Wang Nan
2015-01-09  6:51     ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 09/11] ARM: kprobes: Fix unreliable MRS instruction tests Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29 ` [PATCH v19 10/11] ARM: kprobes: check register usage for probed instruction Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:29   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-13 15:01   ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy) [this message]
2015-01-13 15:01     ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-13 16:13     ` [PATCH] " Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-13 16:13       ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-19 10:37       ` Wang Nan
2015-01-19 10:37         ` Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:34 ` [PATCH v19 11/11] ARM: optprobes: execute instruction during restoring if possible Wang Nan
2015-01-05 11:34   ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 13:40 ` [PATCH v19 00/11] ARM: kprobes: OPTPROBES and other improvements Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-07 13:40   ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2015-01-20  2:17   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-01-20  2:17     ` Masami Hiramatsu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1421161268.4215.56.camel@linaro.org \
    --to=tixy@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.