From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [arm/hw_breakpoint] Detecting that hardware watchpoint support is unavailable
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:43:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170707124332.GF6735@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJt8pk8f3Z4O=JLB8vSimAbwaAd8AqELKWJzZJF+io13Ziia6g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:37:53PM +0100, Pavel Labath wrote:
> Hello Pratyush, Will,
>
> I have an arm(32) chip, which has hardware debug support disabled, as
> far as I can tell (DBGDSCR.MDBGen reads as zero even after explicitly
> setting in).
>
> The current behavior of the kernel on these chips is to return a
> non-zero number for the "number of supported watchpoint resources"
> when queried with ptrace and then fail at runtime (ENODEV) when the
> tracer attempts to set this breakpoint.
>
> This does not seem like a particularly nice api, and I believe it
> would be better to just return zero for the watchpoint count
> initially, as we already know that setting the watchpoints will fail.
>
> arch_hw_breakpoint_init() zeroes out the core_num_wrps when it detects
> that debug support is not present, however when we return resource
> info (ptrace_get_hbp_resource_info), we go through
> hw_breakpoint_slots(), which does not read these.
>
> I think having ptrace_get_hbp_resource_info() read core_num_wrps would
> be more consistent because that's how we read maximum watchpoint
> length (arch_get_max_wp_len), which means we (correctly ?) return 0
> when hardware debug is not supported. In fact, that is how I presently
> detect that hardware debug is not supported (reading max_wp_len), but
> at this moment that seems more like an accident than a deliberate
> interface. Having num_wrps, num_brps zeroed out as well would make it
> clear that this is how it's intended to be used.
>
> So, what do you think about a patch like that?
I don't want to expose hw_breakpoint internals to ptrace as long as we
go through the internal perf interface. The two options really are:
1. Rip out the perf crap and integrate ptrace more tightly with
hw_breakpoint.
2. Fix hw_breakpoint_slots(...) to do what you want, although I seem
to recall a chicken-and-egg problem there where perf insists on calling
that function (hw_breakpoint_slots) early.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 12:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-07 12:37 [arm/hw_breakpoint] Detecting that hardware watchpoint support is unavailable Pavel Labath
2017-07-07 12:43 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-07-07 13:11 ` Pavel Labath
2017-07-18 13:54 ` Will Deacon
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=20170707124332.GF6735@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).