From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:20:04 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ARM64: perf: support dwarf unwinding in compat mode
In-Reply-To: <CAFrcx1=53sUDjxa-DjuJUScxanhQJqAVA36RaYNo5-Dfegij7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1389869123-5884-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org>
 <20140116115634.GE30257@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAFrcx1=eAHsGZDsedGvvNai7Vrnf5p8RKLGFPS+cn5yGp7UQJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116125727.GI30257@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAFrcx1npWFs3=rooqiGKSv-p7ivcG1J7SCvcmsz-hd3waXBfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFrcx1=QWPFeuNDc0JatiykGnRuvPyOgwwCxnW7pSAiNa9RsxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140117100723.GB16003@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAFrcx1=53sUDjxa-DjuJUScxanhQJqAVA36RaYNo5-Dfegij7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140121112004.GH30706@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:05:14PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> Here is an updated version of the change, which uses compat_sp at only
> one place.
> The drawback is that compat_user_mode is checked when calling
> compat_user_stack_pointer, which seems unnecessary. Unfortunately the
> check is not optimized out by the complier as I could check with
> objdump -S.
> 
> What do you think?

I think that's cleaner and really wouldn't worry about the couple of extra
instructions.

Cheers,

Will

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> index fda2704..e71f81f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static inline compat_uptr_t ptr_to_compat(void __user *uptr)
>         return (u32)(unsigned long)uptr;
>  }
> 
> -#define compat_user_stack_pointer() (current_pt_regs()->compat_sp)
> +#define compat_user_stack_pointer() (user_stack_pointer(current_pt_regs()))
> 
>  static inline void __user *arch_compat_alloc_user_space(long len)
>  {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> index fbb0020..86d5b54 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ struct pt_regs {
>         (!((regs)->pstate & PSR_F_BIT))
> 
>  #define user_stack_pointer(regs) \
> -       ((regs)->sp)
> +       (!compat_user_mode(regs)) ? ((regs)->sp) : ((regs)->compat_sp)
> 
>  /*
>   * Are the current registers suitable for user mode? (used to maintain