All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Xie Yuanbin <xieyuanbin1@huawei.com>,
	clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, linusw@kernel.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	liaohua4@huawei.com, lilinjie8@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: enable interrupts when arm_notify_die() is handling user mode errors
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:20:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aj0A3SjMhR24e8fP@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260625093008.e5I4bh-_@linutronix.de>

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:30:08AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-06-25 10:05:52 [+0100], Russell King wrote:
> > > for this but actual breakpoint handling might be broken or is it just
> > > me? But then your stack trace looks like mine so :/
> > 
> > ARM Linux doesn't use BKPT. BKPT was an instruction introduced by Arm
> > Ltd in ARMv5TE. Prior to this, we use a UDF instruction instead (we
> > had to pick something!) and gdb and other tools use that as a
> > breapoint.
> > 
> > Moreover, BKPT isn't guaranteed to trap to the kernel, especially when
> > there is a hardware debugger connected. In that case, DDI0100E states
> > that use of BKPT must be according to the instructions provided with
> > the hardware debugger. This makes BKPT unsuitable for use.
> 
> So you are saying this:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> index e62cc4be5adf6..11ac69113eca2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> @@ -595,6 +595,16 @@ do_bad(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> +static int do_debug_event(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
> +			  struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	if (!user_mode(regs))
> +		return 1;
> +	local_irq_enable();
> +	ptrace_break(regs);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  struct fsr_info {
>  	int	(*fn)(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs);
>  	int	sig;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> index f2be95197265d..bfd718f64020c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static struct fsr_info fsr_info[] = {
>  static struct fsr_info ifsr_info[] = {
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 0"			   },
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 1"			   },
> -	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"debug event"			   },
> +	{ do_debug_event,	SIGBUS,  0,		"debug event"			   },
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGSEGV, SEGV_ACCERR,	"section access flag fault"	   },
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 4"			   },
>  	{ do_translation_fault,	SIGSEGV, SEGV_MAPERR,	"section translation fault"	   },
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> index d0ae2963656a6..96c1d45d20d9e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static struct fsr_info fsr_info[] = {
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"synchronous parity error (translation table walk" },
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 32"			},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  BUS_ADRALN,	"alignment fault"		},
> -	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"debug event"			},
> +	{ do_debug_event,	SIGBUS,  0,		"debug event"			},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 35"			},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 36"			},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGBUS,  0,		"unknown 37"			},
> 
> is not worth doing it? With this I can my little testcase working.

No, it isn't, because if you enable PERF_EVENTS then BKPT breaks.
hw_breakpoint.c claims this vector.

Moreover, in older architectures, FSR=2 means "Terminal exception"
which is defined as "This indicates that an irrecoverable fault has
occurred. The circumstances under which this can happen (if at all)
are IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED." - from DDI0100E (which includes
ARMv5TE). In DDI0100F, this encoding was changed to "Debug exception".

Hence, the above can not be unconditional.

Then, we also have that FSR=2 is generated for a number of different
reasons (including hardware debug events) which may trigger.

Also a hardware debugger (e.g. connected via JTAG) could decide to
pass a BKPT exception on, and that could happen from the kernel. I
believe LLVM CFI uses BKPT (see LinusW's commit c3f89986fde7 ("ARM:
9391/2: hw_breakpoint: Handle CFI breakpoints")

BKPT is a total mess.

> That would be exc_int3() from arch/x86/kernel/traps.c.
> Besides doing "notify_die(DIE_INT3, "int3", regs, 0, X86_TRAP_BP, SIGTRAP);"
> 
> it does cond_local_irq_enable() which enables the interrupts if they
> were enabled by the "caller", sends the signal (SIGTRAP).

I'm happy with that approach as far as interrupts go, but we can't
change the behaviour for FSR=2 again, beyond fixing LinusW's
commit (which has recently been reported as a regression.)

Note that the change which makes this raise a SIGTRAP rather than
SIGBUS when PERF_EVENTS=y could _also_ be reported as a regression
that we would have to fix, and making FSR=2 raise a SIGTRAP now
could very well invite that regression to be reported.

Essentially, I don't think we can "fix" BKPT to always raise SIGTRAP.
The BKPT instruction is something the kernel has never _officially_
supported.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-25 10:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-25  7:35 [PATCH] ARM: enable interrupts when arm_notify_die() is handling user mode errors Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25  8:50 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25  9:05   ` Russell King
2026-06-25  9:30     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25 10:20       ` Russell King [this message]
2026-06-25 12:08         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25 10:00 ` Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25 10:23   ` Russell King
2026-06-25 12:26     ` Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25 15:21       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-26  8:29         ` Xie Yuanbin

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=aj0A3SjMhR24e8fP@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
    --cc=liaohua4@huawei.com \
    --cc=lilinjie8@huawei.com \
    --cc=linusw@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=xieyuanbin1@huawei.com \
    /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.