From: alex.bennee@linaro.org (Alex Bennée)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH REPOST 2/3] arm64: Fix single stepping in kernel traps
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:45:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wp4byewv.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507050352-15909-3-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com>
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> writes:
> Software Step exception is missing after stepping a trapped instruction.
>
> Ensure SPSR.SS gets set to 0 after emulating/skipping a trapped instruction
> before doing ERET.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h | 2 ++
> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 8 ++++----
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h
> index d131501..dd7affb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/traps.h
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ struct undef_hook {
>
> void arm64_notify_segfault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr);
>
> +void arm64_skip_trapped_instr(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long size);
> +
Personally I think this is a poor name as it implies there is no effect
from the operation. I suspect arm64_update_regs is a little too generic
through. Naming things as ever is hard....
> static inline int __in_irqentry_text(unsigned long ptr)
> {
> return ptr >= (unsigned long)&__irqentry_text_start &&
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> index f0e6d71..1f38208 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c
> @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static int swp_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 instr)
> pr_warn_ratelimited("\"%s\" (%ld) uses obsolete SWP{B} instruction at 0x%llx\n",
> current->comm, (unsigned long)current->pid, regs->pc);
>
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, 4);
> return 0;
>
> fault:
> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ static int cp15barrier_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 instr)
> pr_warn_ratelimited("\"%s\" (%ld) uses deprecated CP15 Barrier instruction at 0x%llx\n",
> current->comm, (unsigned long)current->pid, regs->pc);
>
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, 4);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -586,14 +586,14 @@ static int compat_setend_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 big_endian)
> static int a32_setend_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 instr)
> {
> int rc = compat_setend_handler(regs, (instr >> 9) & 1);
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, 4);
> return rc;
> }
Why didn't we use AARCH64_INSN_SIZE for these here?
>
> static int t16_setend_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 instr)
> {
> int rc = compat_setend_handler(regs, (instr >> 3) & 1);
> - regs->pc += 2;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, 2);
> return rc;
> }
I guess we don't have an equivalent AARCH32_T16_INSN_SIZE?
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index cd52d36..2956d5a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1287,7 +1287,7 @@ static int emulate_mrs(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 insn)
> if (!rc) {
> dst = aarch64_insn_decode_register(AARCH64_INSN_REGTYPE_RT, insn);
> pt_regs_write_reg(regs, dst, val);
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> }
>
> return rc;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> index 5ea4b85..ed9d856 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -293,6 +293,17 @@ void arm64_notify_die(const char *str, struct pt_regs *regs,
> }
> }
>
> +void arm64_skip_trapped_instr(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long size)
> +{
> + regs->pc += size;
> +
> + /*
> + * If we were single stepping, we want to get the step exception after
> + * we return from the skipped exception
> + */
> + regs->pstate &= ~DBG_SPSR_SS;
> +}
> +
> static LIST_HEAD(undef_hook);
> static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(undef_lock);
>
> @@ -480,7 +491,7 @@ static void user_cache_maint_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> if (ret)
> arm64_notify_segfault(regs, address);
> else
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> }
>
> static void ctr_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> @@ -490,7 +501,7 @@ static void ctr_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> pt_regs_write_reg(regs, rt, val);
>
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> }
>
> static void cntvct_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> @@ -498,7 +509,7 @@ static void cntvct_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> int rt = (esr & ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_RT_MASK) >> ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_RT_SHIFT;
>
> pt_regs_write_reg(regs, rt, arch_counter_get_cntvct());
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> }
>
> static void cntfrq_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> @@ -506,7 +517,7 @@ static void cntfrq_read_handler(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> int rt = (esr & ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_RT_MASK) >> ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_RT_SHIFT;
>
> pt_regs_write_reg(regs, rt, arch_timer_get_rate());
> - regs->pc += 4;
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> }
>
> struct sys64_hook {
> @@ -761,7 +772,7 @@ static int bug_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
> }
>
> /* If thread survives, skip over the BUG instruction and continue: */
> - regs->pc += AARCH64_INSN_SIZE; /* skip BRK and resume */
> + arm64_skip_trapped_instr(regs, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE);
> return DBG_HOOK_HANDLED;
> }
It would be nice to find a better name but otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Alex Benn?e <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
--
Alex Benn?e
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-03 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-03 17:05 [PATCH REPOST 0/3] Fix single step for traps Julien Thierry
2017-10-03 17:05 ` [PATCH REPOST 1/3] arm64: Use existing defines for mdscr Julien Thierry
2017-10-03 23:28 ` Alex Bennée
2017-10-03 23:28 ` Alex Bennée
2017-10-03 17:05 ` [PATCH REPOST 2/3] arm64: Fix single stepping in kernel traps Julien Thierry
2017-10-03 23:45 ` Alex Bennée [this message]
2017-10-04 11:12 ` Julien Thierry
2017-10-04 12:01 ` Alex Bennée
2017-10-03 17:05 ` [PATCH REPOST 3/3] arm64: kvm: Fix single step for guest skipped instructions Julien Thierry
2017-10-04 0:16 ` Alex Bennée
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=87wp4byewv.fsf@linaro.org \
--to=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--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).