[PATCH v3 0/5] ARM64: disable irq between breakpoint and step exception

[takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro)]

Hi Pratyush,

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:10:28PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> v2 -> v3
> - Moved step_needed from uapi structure to kernel only structure
> - Re-enable interrupt if stepped instruction faults
> - Modified register_wide_hw_breakpoint() to accept step_needed arg
> v2 was here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=149942910730496&w=2
> 
> v1 -> v2:
> - patch 1 of v1 has been modified to patch 1-3 of v2.
> - Introduced a new event attribute step_needed and implemented
>   hw_breakpoint_needs_single_step() (patch 1)
> - Replaced usage of is_default_overflow_handler() with
>   hw_breakpoint_needs_single_step(). (patch 2)
> - Modified sample test to set set step_needed bit field (patch 3)
> v1 was here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=149910958418708&w=2
> 
> samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.c passes with x86_64 but fails with
> ARM64. Even though it has been NAKed previously on upstream [1, 2], I have
> tried to come up with patches which can resolve it for ARM64 as well.
> 
> I noticed that even perf step exception can go into an infinite loop if CPU
> receives an interrupt while executing breakpoint/watchpoint handler. So,
> event though we are not concerned about above test, we will have to find a
> solution for the perf issue.
> 
> This patchset attempts to resolve both the issue. Please review.
> Since, it also takes care of SW breakpoint, so I hope kgdb should also be
> fine. However, I have not tested that.
> @Takahiro: Will it be possible to test these patches for kgdb.

I have not yet understood the details of your patch, but
I gave it a try and didn't see any difference around the behavior
of kgdb's single stepping.

I also gave a try to James' patch, but again nothing different
as long as kgdb is concerned.
(I'm tackling some issue in single stepping at irq's kernel_exit,
in particular, 'eret'.)

-Takahiro AKASHI


> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=149580777524910&w=2
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-April/425266.html