[PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

[masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com (Masami Hiramatsu)]

(2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote:
>> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>>>>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>>>>>> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
>>>>>> work with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
>>>>> ARM, we have to manually remove the breakpoint, perform a single-step, then
>>>>> add the breakpoint again. If we re-enable debug exceptions in the kprobe
>>>>> handler, the step will complete early and we'll never step off the
>>>>> breakpoint.
>>>>
>>>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
>>>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
>>>>
>>>>> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model, since
>>>>> I'm fairly sure it won't work as expected without some additional code.
>>>>
>>>> OK, anyway, for testing same one, we need to port ftrace first. So the next
>>
>> Sorry for confusion, s/next/fallback is what I meant. Making a kprobe module
>> can be done without ftrace port.
> Yes, got it, all my verification until now are done using sample
> modules only,  looking out for perf (or some other mechanism: ptrace?)
> that uses v8 hw breakpoint.

Yes, kprobe vs. perf and uprobe vs. ptrace :)


>>>> plan is to make a kprobe module to put a probe (which just printk something)
>>>> on a specific function (e.g. vfs_symlink), and run perf record with
>>>> hw-breakpoint as below
>>>>
>>>> $ perf record -e "mem:0xXXXXXX:k" ln -s /dev/null /tmp/foo
>>>>
>>>> Note that 0xXXXXXX is the address of vfs_symlink.
>>>>
>>>> After that, you can see the message in dmesg and also check the perf result
>>>> with "sudo perf script --dump" (you can find a PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE entry if
>>>> it works)
>>> Thanks for steps, ARM64 ftrace patches are under review on arm mailing
>>> list, I can contact the (linaro) developer implementing ftrace on
>>> what's supported and then figure-out a way to test this concurrency of
>>> kprobes breakpoint and hardware breakpoint.
>>
>> Would you mean this? :)
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg278477.html
>>
>> Wow, it seems that this also has some works around instruction
>> manipulation (and confusable filenames...)
> I referred to: http://lwn.net/Articles/572323/  which is another
> implementation and on LAKML

OK, I'll check that (and looks good at a glance).
By the way, I concern about Linaro guys who looks working a bit far
from the LKML and original feature maintainers. Please contact them,
I'm sure they don't bite your hand :)

BTW, I'm currently trying a general housecleaning of __kprobes
annotations. It may also have impact on your patch.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/8/187

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com