From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] regset ->get() API
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 18:59:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200221185903.GA3929948@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200221033016.GV23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:30:16AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Alternatively, we could introduce a new method, with one-by-one
> conversion to it. Hmm...
> int (*get2)(struct task_struct *target,
> const struct user_regset *regset,
> struct membuf to);
> returning -E... on error and amount left unfilled on success, perhaps?
> That seems to generate decent code and is pretty easy on the instances,
> especially if membuf_write() et.al. are made to return to->left...
Arrrrghhh... sparc is interesting. For one thing, GETREGS64 uses
a format different from coredump (or GETREGSET) - instead of
G0..G7, O0..O7, L0..L7, I0..I7, TSTATE, TPC, TNPC, (u64)Y
it's
G1..G7, O0..O7, TSTATE, TPC, TNPC, (u64)Y
with interesting comment about Y being mishandled. Achieved by
a couple of copy_regset_to_user() with non-zero offset ;-/
GETREGS is also different from coredump/GETREGSET - instead of
G0..G7, O0..O7, L0..L7, I0..I7, PSR, PC, nPC, Y, 0 (WIM), 0 (TBR)
it's
PSR, PC, nPC, Y, G1..G7, O0..O7
Again, a couple of copy_regset_to_user(), but there's an additional
twist - GETREGSET of 32bit task on sparc64 will use access_process_vm()
when trying to fetch L0..L7/I0..I7 of other task, using copy_from_user()
only when the target is equal to current. For sparc32 this is not
true - it's always copy_from_user() there, so the values it reports
for those registers have nothing to do with the target process. That
part smells like a bug; by the time GETREGSET had been introduced
sparc32 was not getting much attention, GETREGS worked just fine
(not reporting L*/I* anyway) and for coredump it was accessing the
caller's memory. Not sure if anyone cares at that point...
The situation with floating point is similar. FWIW, considering how
compact those ->get2() instances become, I wonder if we should just
go for
static int getregs_get(struct task_struct *target,
const struct user_regset *regset,
struct membuf to)
{
const struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(target);
int i;
if (target == current)
flushw_user();
membuf_store(&to, (u32)tstate_to_psr(regs->tstate));
membuf_store(&to, (u32)(regs->tpc));
membuf_store(&to, (u32)(regs->tnpc));
membuf_store(&to, (u32)(regs->y));
for (i = 1; i < 16; i++)
membuf_store(&to, (u32)regs->u_regs[i]);
return to.left;
}
static int getfpregs_get(struct task_struct *target,
const struct user_regset *regset,
struct membuf to)
{
struct thread_info *t = task_thread_info(target);
if (target == current)
save_and_clear_fpu();
membuf_write(&to, t->fpregs, 32 * sizeof(u32));
if (t->fpsaved[0] & FPRS_FEF)
membuf_store(&to, (u32)t->xfsr[0]);
else
membuf_zero(&to, sizeof(u32));
return membuf_zero(&to, 35 * sizeof(u32));
}
and slap together a couple of struct user_regset refering to those,
so that PTRACE_GETREGS/PTRACE_GETFPREGS would just use solitary
copy_regset_to_user() calls on those, rather than trying to
paste them out of several calls on the normal regsets...
FWIW, they do shrink nicely - compare e.g.
static int fpregs64_get(struct task_struct *target,
const struct user_regset *regset,
struct membuf to)
{
const unsigned long *fpregs = task_thread_info(target)->fpregs;
unsigned long fprs;
if (target == current)
save_and_clear_fpu();
fprs = task_thread_info(target)->fpsaved[0];
if (fprs & FPRS_DL)
membuf_write(&to, fpregs, 16 * sizeof(u64));
else
membuf_zero(&to, 16 * sizeof(u64));
if (fprs & FPRS_DU)
membuf_write(&to, fpregs + 16, 16 * sizeof(u64));
else
membuf_zero(&to, 16 * sizeof(u64));
if (fprs & FPRS_FEF) {
membuf_store(&to, task_thread_info(target)->xfsr[0]);
membuf_store(&to, task_thread_info(target)->gsr[0]);
} else {
membuf_zero(&to, 2 * sizeof(u64));
}
return membuf_store(&to, fprs);
}
with the same function in mainline arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace_64.c...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-21 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-17 18:33 [RFC] regset ->get() API Al Viro
2020-02-19 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 22:47 ` Al Viro
2020-02-20 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-20 23:29 ` Al Viro
2020-02-20 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-02-21 3:30 ` Al Viro
2020-02-21 18:59 ` Al Viro [this message]
2020-02-21 19:22 ` David Miller
2020-02-22 0:41 ` Al Viro
2020-04-13 4:32 ` David Miller
2020-04-13 4:32 ` David Miller
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=20200221185903.GA3929948@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).