From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Add uprobe support
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:56:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160824155649.GG16944@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160824154711.GA25531@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/24, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we want user_{enable,disable{_single_step in the long term,
> > > please look at 9bd1190a11c9d2 "uprobes/x86: Do not (ab)use TIF_SINGLESTEP
> > > /user_*_single_step() for single-stepping". it seems that ARM64 sets/clears
> > > TIF_SINGLESTEP. You can also lool at saved_tf logic, probably ARM64 needs
> > > the same.
> >
> > IIUC, then you mean that TIF_SINGLESTEP is a per task flag,
>
> Yes, and nobody but ptrace should use it, otherwise ptrace/uprobes can confuse
> each other. And uprobes simply doesn't need to set/clear it.
We're already using it for kprobes, hw_breakpoint and kgdb as well as
ptrace, so I'd rather uprobes either followed existing practice, or we
converted everybody off the current code.
In what way do things get confused?
> > while
> > arch_uprobe_pre/post_xol() should enable/disable single stepping using a per
> > uprobe_task,
>
> I can't really answer since I know nothing about arm. x86 just needs to set
> X86_EFLAGS_TF, I guess arm needs to modify some register too?
We have {user,kernel}_{enable,disable}_single_step for managing the various
registers controlling the single-step state machine on arm64.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
wcohen@redhat.com, dave.long@linaro.org, steve.capper@linaro.org,
srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com,
Shi Yang <yang.shi@linaro.org>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Ashok Kumar <ashoks@broadcom.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@gmail.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com>,
Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Add uprobe support
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:56:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160824155649.GG16944@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160824154711.GA25531@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/24, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we want user_{enable,disable{_single_step in the long term,
> > > please look at 9bd1190a11c9d2 "uprobes/x86: Do not (ab)use TIF_SINGLESTEP
> > > /user_*_single_step() for single-stepping". it seems that ARM64 sets/clears
> > > TIF_SINGLESTEP. You can also lool at saved_tf logic, probably ARM64 needs
> > > the same.
> >
> > IIUC, then you mean that TIF_SINGLESTEP is a per task flag,
>
> Yes, and nobody but ptrace should use it, otherwise ptrace/uprobes can confuse
> each other. And uprobes simply doesn't need to set/clear it.
We're already using it for kprobes, hw_breakpoint and kgdb as well as
ptrace, so I'd rather uprobes either followed existing practice, or we
converted everybody off the current code.
In what way do things get confused?
> > while
> > arch_uprobe_pre/post_xol() should enable/disable single stepping using a per
> > uprobe_task,
>
> I can't really answer since I know nothing about arm. x86 just needs to set
> X86_EFLAGS_TF, I guess arm needs to modify some register too?
We have {user,kernel}_{enable,disable}_single_step for managing the various
registers controlling the single-step state machine on arm64.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-24 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-02 5:30 [PATCH 0/5] ARM64: Uprobe support added Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm64: kprobe: protect/rename few definitions to be reused by uprobe Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm64: kgdb_step_brk_fn: ignore other's exception Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm64: Handle TRAP_HWBRKPT for user mode as well Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-06 16:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-06 16:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-06 21:36 ` David Long
2016-09-06 21:36 ` David Long
2016-09-07 4:47 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-07 4:47 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-07 13:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-07 13:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-08-02 5:30 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm64: Handle TRAP_BRKPT " Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-06 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-06 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-08-02 5:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Add uprobe support Pratyush Anand
2016-08-02 5:30 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-09 18:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-09 18:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-24 7:13 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-24 7:13 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-08-24 15:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-24 15:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-24 15:56 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-08-24 15:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-08-25 13:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-25 13:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-20 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-20 16:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-21 11:00 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-21 11:00 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-21 17:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-21 17:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-22 3:23 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-22 3:23 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-22 16:50 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-22 16:50 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-23 4:12 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-23 4:12 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-23 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-23 13:05 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-25 17:02 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-25 17:02 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-26 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-26 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-26 13:03 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-26 13:03 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-27 13:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-27 13:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-27 15:03 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-27 15:03 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-28 17:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-28 17:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-08-24 7:26 ` [PATCH 0/5] ARM64: Uprobe support added Pratyush Anand
2016-08-24 7:26 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-20 2:51 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-09-20 2:51 ` Pratyush Anand
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=20160824155649.GG16944@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.