From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wade_farnsworth@mentor.com (Wade Farnsworth)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:06:20 -0700
Subject: ARM tracehook support
In-Reply-To: <4F428C39.40906@mentor.com>
References: <4F4268D5.7070103@mentor.com>
 <20120220154748.GG25462@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <4F428C39.40906@mentor.com>
Message-ID: <4F43CF0C.2020301@mentor.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Wade Farnsworth wrote:
> Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 03:37:57PM +0000, Wade Farnsworth wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hello Wade,
>>
>>> A few months back, Steven Walter posted some patches that implemement
>>> syscall tracing support for ARM:
>>>
>>> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20111129.162812.bd17d9b5.en.html#linux-arm-kernel
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been working on SystemTap support for ARM, and the tracehook patch
>>> in particular is interesting in that respect. With that patch applied,
>>> it would allow utrace to be supported on ARM, which is necessary for
>>> userspace stap probes to function properly.
>>>
>>> From what testing I've done, the patches don't appear to be harmful.
>>> So, I'm wondering what's preventing this from being pushed into
>>> mainline? Are there still outstanding issues that need to be addressed?
>>
>> Yup, I posted some questions here:
>>
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-December/074802.html
>>
>
> OK, so to continue that conversation:
>
> Will Deacon wrote:
>  > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:46:20PM +0000, Steven Walter wrote:
>  >> +static inline void syscall_get_arguments(struct task_struct *task,
>  >> + struct pt_regs *regs,
>  >> + unsigned int i, unsigned int n,
>  >> + unsigned long *args)
>  >> +{
>  >> + BUG_ON(i + n > 6);
>  >
>  > So I guess 6 is the maximum number of registers that are used for
>  > syscall passing. That sounds about right to me, but I wondered how
>  > you worked it out (and whether or not it should be defined
>  > somewhere?).
>
> I believe the 6 argument constraint is a specific to
> syscall_get_arguments(). Notice the comment in
> include/asm-generic/syscall.h:
>
> /*
> [...]
> *
> * It's only valid to call this when @task is stopped for tracing on
> * entry to a system call, due to %TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE or %TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT.
> * It's invalid to call this with @i + @n > 6; we only support system calls
> * taking up to 6 arguments.
> */
>
> Additionally, if you'll look at the other architectures' implementations
> you'll see similar code.
>
>  > In fact, how are these things supposed to deal with 64-bit arguments
>  > that straddle two registers? I think we always pack arguments such
>  > that we don't get holes in the register layout, but it might be worth
>  > checking (EABI requires 64-bit arguments to be passed in even
>  > registers).
>
> Hmm, I do believe that 32-bit powerpc has similar alignment issues
> (64-bit args must be passed in odd/even pairs), but I don't see any
> special handling of this in that architecture's
> syscall_get/set_arguments(). So I'm wondering if the handling of this is
> or should be handled elsewhere. I'll keep digging on this.
>

This question also came up from an older attempt at ARM tracehook by 
Roland McGrath:

http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2009/06/24/150

In a nutshell, the argument is that syscall_get_arguments() doesn't need 
to know about any of the argument semantics, they just pass all 
registers that may contain arguments back up the stack.  It's then up to 
the tracer to interpret the arguments.  The argument is similar for 
syscall_set_arguments().  Since the same register set is used for both 
EABI and OABI, there doesn't need to be any specific handling of one 
versus the other here.

Thanks,

-Wade