From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] kernel: add kcov code coverage
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:42:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160115134207.GH2131@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPAsAGzjX2OJ7SRt4gM1VqEEm5=xERUtfcEDi05o5bwOTdNhpQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:05:55PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> 2016-01-14 17:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> > <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2016-01-13 15:48 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>:
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/kcov/kcov.c b/kernel/kcov/kcov.c
> >>> +/* Entry point from instrumented code.
> >>> + * This is called once per basic-block/edge.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct task_struct *t;
> >>> + enum kcov_mode mode;
> >>> +
> >>> + t = current;
> >>> + /* We are interested in code coverage as a function of a syscall inputs,
> >>> + * so we ignore code executed in interrupts.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (!t || in_interrupt())
> >>> + return;
> >>> + mode = READ_ONCE(t->kcov_mode);
> >>> + if (mode == kcov_mode_trace) {
> >>> + u32 *area;
> >>> + u32 pos;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* There is some code that runs in interrupts but for which
> >>> + * in_interrupt() returns false (e.g. preempt_schedule_irq()).
> >>> + * READ_ONCE()/barrier() effectively provides load-acquire wrt
> >>> + * interrupts, there are paired barrier()/WRITE_ONCE() in
> >>> + * kcov_ioctl_locked().
> >>> + */
> >>> + barrier();
> >>> + area = t->kcov_area;
> >>> + /* The first u32 is number of subsequent PCs. */
> >>> + pos = READ_ONCE(area[0]) + 1;
> >>> + if (likely(pos < t->kcov_size)) {
> >>> + area[pos] = (u32)_RET_IP_;
> >>> + WRITE_ONCE(area[0], pos);
> >>
> >> Note that this works only for cache-coherent architectures.
> >> For incoherent arches you'll need to flush_dcache_page() somewhere.
> >> Perhaps it could be done on exit to userspace, since flushing here is
> >> certainly an overkill.
> >
> > I can say that I understand the problem. Does it have to do with the
> > fact that the buffer is shared between kernel and user-space?
> > Current code is OK from the plain multi-threading side, as user must
> > not read buffer concurrently with writing (that would not yield
> > anything useful).
>
> It's not about SMP.
> This problem is about virtually indexed aliasing D-caches and could be
> observed on uniprocessor system.
> You have 3 virtual addresses (user-space, linear mapping and vmalloc)
> mapped to the same physical page.
> With aliasing cache it's possible to have multiple cache-lines
> representing the same physical page.
> So the kernel might not see the update made by userspace and vise
> versa because kernel/userspace use different virtual addresses.
>
> And btw, flush_dcache_page() would be a wrong choice, since kcov_area
> is a vmalloc address, not a linear address.
> So we need something that flushes vmalloc addresses.
>
> Alternatively we could simply mlock that memory and talk to user space
> via get/put_user(). No flush will be required.
> And we will avoid another potential problem - lack of vmalloc address
> space on 32-bits.
>
> > We could add an ioctl that does the flush. But I would prefer if it is
> > done when we port kcov to such an arch. Does arm64 require the flush?
> >
>
> I think, it doesn't. AFAIK arm64 has non-aliasing D-cache.
>
> arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h says:
> Please note that the implementation assumes non-aliasing VIPT D-cache
>
> However, I wonder why it implements flush_dcache_page(). Per my
> understanding it is not need for non-aliasing caches.
> And Documentation/cachetlb.txt agrees with me:
> void flush_dcache_page(struct page *page)
> If D-cache aliasing is not an issue, this routine may
> simply be defined as a nop on that architecture.
>
> Catalin, Will, could you please shed light on this?
It's only there to keep the I-cache and D-cache in sync for executable
pages. That is, flush_dcache_page sets a flah (PG_dcache_clean) in the
page flags, which is checked and cleared when we install an executable
user pte.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Tavis Ormandy <taviso@google.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: add kcov code coverage
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:42:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160115134207.GH2131@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPAsAGzjX2OJ7SRt4gM1VqEEm5=xERUtfcEDi05o5bwOTdNhpQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:05:55PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> 2016-01-14 17:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> > <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2016-01-13 15:48 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>:
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/kcov/kcov.c b/kernel/kcov/kcov.c
> >>> +/* Entry point from instrumented code.
> >>> + * This is called once per basic-block/edge.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct task_struct *t;
> >>> + enum kcov_mode mode;
> >>> +
> >>> + t = current;
> >>> + /* We are interested in code coverage as a function of a syscall inputs,
> >>> + * so we ignore code executed in interrupts.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (!t || in_interrupt())
> >>> + return;
> >>> + mode = READ_ONCE(t->kcov_mode);
> >>> + if (mode == kcov_mode_trace) {
> >>> + u32 *area;
> >>> + u32 pos;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* There is some code that runs in interrupts but for which
> >>> + * in_interrupt() returns false (e.g. preempt_schedule_irq()).
> >>> + * READ_ONCE()/barrier() effectively provides load-acquire wrt
> >>> + * interrupts, there are paired barrier()/WRITE_ONCE() in
> >>> + * kcov_ioctl_locked().
> >>> + */
> >>> + barrier();
> >>> + area = t->kcov_area;
> >>> + /* The first u32 is number of subsequent PCs. */
> >>> + pos = READ_ONCE(area[0]) + 1;
> >>> + if (likely(pos < t->kcov_size)) {
> >>> + area[pos] = (u32)_RET_IP_;
> >>> + WRITE_ONCE(area[0], pos);
> >>
> >> Note that this works only for cache-coherent architectures.
> >> For incoherent arches you'll need to flush_dcache_page() somewhere.
> >> Perhaps it could be done on exit to userspace, since flushing here is
> >> certainly an overkill.
> >
> > I can say that I understand the problem. Does it have to do with the
> > fact that the buffer is shared between kernel and user-space?
> > Current code is OK from the plain multi-threading side, as user must
> > not read buffer concurrently with writing (that would not yield
> > anything useful).
>
> It's not about SMP.
> This problem is about virtually indexed aliasing D-caches and could be
> observed on uniprocessor system.
> You have 3 virtual addresses (user-space, linear mapping and vmalloc)
> mapped to the same physical page.
> With aliasing cache it's possible to have multiple cache-lines
> representing the same physical page.
> So the kernel might not see the update made by userspace and vise
> versa because kernel/userspace use different virtual addresses.
>
> And btw, flush_dcache_page() would be a wrong choice, since kcov_area
> is a vmalloc address, not a linear address.
> So we need something that flushes vmalloc addresses.
>
> Alternatively we could simply mlock that memory and talk to user space
> via get/put_user(). No flush will be required.
> And we will avoid another potential problem - lack of vmalloc address
> space on 32-bits.
>
> > We could add an ioctl that does the flush. But I would prefer if it is
> > done when we port kcov to such an arch. Does arm64 require the flush?
> >
>
> I think, it doesn't. AFAIK arm64 has non-aliasing D-cache.
>
> arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h says:
> Please note that the implementation assumes non-aliasing VIPT D-cache
>
> However, I wonder why it implements flush_dcache_page(). Per my
> understanding it is not need for non-aliasing caches.
> And Documentation/cachetlb.txt agrees with me:
> void flush_dcache_page(struct page *page)
> If D-cache aliasing is not an issue, this routine may
> simply be defined as a nop on that architecture.
>
> Catalin, Will, could you please shed light on this?
It's only there to keep the I-cache and D-cache in sync for executable
pages. That is, flush_dcache_page sets a flah (PG_dcache_clean) in the
page flags, which is checked and cleared when we install an executable
user pte.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-15 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-13 12:48 [PATCH v2] kernel: add kcov code coverage Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-13 22:31 ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-14 9:03 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-01-14 9:10 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-14 9:23 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-01-14 12:21 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-14 12:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-01-14 12:49 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-01-14 14:24 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-14 10:50 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2016-01-14 14:30 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-15 13:05 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2016-01-15 13:05 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2016-01-15 13:42 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-01-15 13:42 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-15 14:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-15 14:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 13:34 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2016-01-18 13:34 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2016-01-18 19:31 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 19:31 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 14:13 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-18 14:13 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-18 19:44 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 19:44 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 20:09 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-18 20:09 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-22 11:55 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-22 11:55 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-22 12:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-22 12:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-22 12:52 ` Mark Rutland
2016-01-22 12:52 ` Mark Rutland
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=20160115134207.GH2131@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--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.