From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Query: arm64: hwbreakpoint: single stepping in case of custom overflow_handler
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:26:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170526112621.GC21770@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3b1a128-b97c-7e52-b30c-56ec3990381a@redhat.com>
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:42:33PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> When we run test from samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.c, it
> triggers continuous watchpoint exception handler.
>
> Reproducer:
> # insmod data_breakpoint.ko ksym=__sysrq_enabled
> # cat /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
>
> So, wanted to understand that why do we not allow single stepping in
> case overflow_handler is a customized one and not from perf
> infrastructure?
>
> Patch [1] allows to work with a custom overflow_handler, but I am
> not sure if that could be an acceptable choice.
Changing this would break userspace, such as GDB, as Will noted last
time this came up:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-April/425363.html
I don't beleive that this is something we can change.
Thanks,
Mark.
> There are issues with samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.c, even
> when using patch [1],because overflow_handler of test calls
> dump_stack(). I am not yet sure,what happened here..my guess is that
> dump_stack() triggered a SW BRK exception somewhere. Anyway,thats a
> secondary problem,I can look into if patch [1] makes sense.
>
>
> ~Pratyush
>
> [1]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> index 749f81779420..ea8ab0656dd0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int breakpoint_handler(unsigned long
> unused, unsigned int esr,
> perf_bp_event(bp, regs);
>
> /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
> - if (is_default_overflow_handler(bp))
> + if (bp->overflow_handler)
> step = 1;
> unlock:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ static int watchpoint_handler(unsigned long
> addr, unsigned int esr,
> perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
>
> /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
> - if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
> + if (wp->overflow_handler)
> step = 1;
> }
> if (min_dist > 0 && min_dist != -1) {
> @@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static int watchpoint_handler(unsigned long
> addr, unsigned int esr,
> perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
>
> /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
> - if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
> + if (wp->overflow_handler)
> step = 1;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-26 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-26 11:12 Query: arm64: hwbreakpoint: single stepping in case of custom overflow_handler Pratyush Anand
2017-05-26 11:26 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-05-26 14:08 ` Pratyush Anand
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=20170526112621.GC21770@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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