From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: panand@redhat.com (Pratyush Anand)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:25:05 +0530
Subject: Query: ARM64: Behavior of el1_dbg exception while executing
 el0_dbg
In-Reply-To: <54B8FD49.2060503@redhat.com>
References: <54AE830E.1090000@redhat.com> <20150108162312.GO11583@arm.com>
 <54AEBE45.9080203@redhat.com> <20150109154635.GG11258@arm.com>
 <54B00C39.1070809@redhat.com> <20150112173005.GK13360@arm.com>
 <54B4BF4C.2030009@redhat.com>
 <20150113155221.GG16524@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <54B55B95.1070402@redhat.com> <54B7EF3C.8060909@redhat.com>
 <54B8FD49.2060503@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <54B92649.6030009@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org


Sorry for writing so many mails...But I have one more closer information 
which could help to further explain the behavior. See below.

On Friday 16 January 2015 05:30 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
>
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 10:17 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
>> Hi Will / Catalin,
>>
>> On Tuesday 13 January 2015 11:23 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
>>> I will still try to find some way to capture enable_dbg macro path.H
>>
>> I did instrumented debug tap points at all the location from where
>> enable_debug macro is called(see attached debug patch). But, I do not
>> see that, execution reaches to any of those tap points between el0_dbg
>> and el1_dbg, and tap points debug log also confirms that el1_dbg is
>> raised before el0_dbg is returned.
>
> Probably we all missed this, ARMv8 specs is very clear about it. In
> section "D2.1 About debug exceptions" it says:
>
> Software Breakpoint Instruction exceptions cannot be masked. The PE
> takes Software Breakpoint Instruction exceptions regardless of both of
> the following:
> ? The current Exception level.
> ? The current Security state.
>
> So, reception of el1_dbg while executing el0_dbg seems perfectly normal
> to me. If you agree then I am back with the original query which I asked
> in the beginning of the
> thread,(http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/383672)
> ie how can instruction_pointer be wrong when second el1_dbg is called
> recursively(as follows).
>
> [1]-> el0_dbg (After executing BRK instruction by user)
> [2]    -> el1_dbg (when uprobe break handler at [1] executes BRK
> instruction)
>          (At the end of this ELR_EL1 is programmed with fffffdfffc000004)

With new tap point debug of entry.S, I see that:

After this we are receiving one more exception and that is el1_inv. Now,
as soon as enable_dbg is called in el1_inv, we receive next single step 
exception, with ELR_EL1 value as next instruction address after 
enable_dbg of el1_inv. EC value of ESR_EL1(0x86000007) in el1_inv is 
0x21 ie ESR_EL1_EC_IABT_EL1 and IFSC is 0x07

Hummmm..So, why did we receive here, an instruction abort in EL1 due to 
Translation fault, third level??? I do not have that much knowledge yet, 
to decipher it... :(


> [3]        -> el1_dbg (when kprobe break handler at [2] enables single
> stepping)
>          (Here ELR_EL1 was found fffffe0000092470).So When this el1_dbg
> was received, then regs->pc  values are not same what was programmed in
> ELR_EL1 at the return of [2].
>

~Pratyush

PS: Debug code is here:
https://github.com/pratyushanand/linux.git : 
ml_arm64_uprobe_devel_debug_el1_inv_while_kprobe_insertion_at_uprobe_breakpoint_handler