From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8242BECAAA1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:19:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=AYGapHeUqN/EG001Vs5rHwwljatbG0+YyD44mP3itYw=; b=dESSXUPuKzeQWZ GKA0eQyZ7MvryQost78Dxz6F4ds2Zy1MT2dXVM7dXjLF2NNC/xUWbdty501S6Hji8PemC9DNoIN+B d3EXFl4NFk2i3mgY6+RpRl2Zu1OWs2RelE62xYcmK+pjRmUNve1BOCR0zdebFC9J7ReUMqUPL7ybn bYsGBV+sYycJQt5n36gNPdQkiYW53F4tR+dogPYknd8MLXSzYr3q7s1nE+XPxlgPTk5RIGcy8B2cM XcpgpyCnnhvevqxauAEyNxRrPw8zzgi95wEnxpGEASoPRWA86ugCu2okS14eANBC2FxZLEzrXgWjS BXBHOEI3zWUzlOkyspAw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oWkSY-002UXB-4r; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 20:18:42 +0000 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oWkSU-002UT8-Ou for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 20:18:40 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id s14-20020a17090a6e4e00b0020057c70943so6405951pjm.1 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Gy6Kb+oqE1M2CTgOLFPHiphkU8Pf6T4kljcQ0TYHTVU=; b=FDUnVkbH8U8f4VqkHeXTQz8VBGCAg9T1M86mp58PgbGJVxB/++bZ9ohGsUqgyORkEq sovW02zELW9agK7THxfH1n4B+/ipzCVHE/hcDEEbyNCDdlngwmx9R3sAfPiso+om99TA L11+aCvYwe1LcM/9WuZwMOn/lGvP7O7RpbDJ0LNpLynMs4/AqGvDIm7IdLwjxL4fTupB /e4m6pARjrDiB7mgJZu9NcWG0r82+M22xZS2uyEg4uGxnSkPPcQnQ7/TEhKsJOyXnFjK 9i7OugmHLrMLUz3ayaJ02PLZoo3Zjw0qCyljxrBj2krr0qx9IVhqhs1CjeFM7Dcbupz/ YqLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Gy6Kb+oqE1M2CTgOLFPHiphkU8Pf6T4kljcQ0TYHTVU=; b=kRfd2+pYEoYufHHGC61J0kxEca1wtgHCek9FwErZGUGV5aEyxj65UYhDMHgV8iQWZM kXkbBWGvl0DJAONlf5udMm8F8RyBBXQN0yWJlMMDHNMBDMjx3VkZ+2j5oZaiz73IjW0D XxP05qC+v7E0XRqLTuTg3St4ah5BhjCfem//qSi9osPEK08hlwS3vfPxK/NaGI2D4RbN ASsRhfrAnN2XkIEeGOKqLdtP6HrPRbloFcFF4DNgtaCWI7zfafBAS1OX7MtmJfaDtcjN eS9On4PzG+9/+/jZ+oi712QU9iqXUX3w1o1G3j2xmgxi1066ru6/iZPrqfnYmRSoP5M6 nZtg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0bGdyMZm50YXtnjd/f13wWv0bfITi0n2wl3AOsdUSc/hCAGN6K kAzdGP3KbDG4r6OylFEii0tvUQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5/mx8cBGntePvZ9MJc78oBFtP5Ueq4RXDHXG8BburmkNuGr/kyK++nJv+2Z12ZSXydMQ30QA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:820f:b0:176:9654:354d with SMTP id x15-20020a170902820f00b001769654354dmr15316063pln.79.1662754714849; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (220.181.82.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.82.181.220]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s15-20020a17090a13cf00b00200de8ebc2bsm854051pjf.13.2022.09.09.13.18.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:18:28 -0700 From: Ricardo Koller To: Reiji Watanabe Cc: Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Linux ARM , James Morse , Alexandru Elisei , Suzuki K Poulose , Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Jones , Oliver Upton , Jing Zhang , Raghavendra Rao Anata Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm64: selftests: Add a test case for a linked breakpoint Message-ID: References: <20220825050846.3418868-1-reijiw@google.com> <20220825050846.3418868-8-reijiw@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220909_131838_848926_2D7C90B6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 33.10 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 06:29:34PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:10 PM Reiji Watanabe wrote: > > > > Currently, the debug-exceptions test doesn't have a test case for > > a linked breakpoint. Add a test case for the linked breakpoint to > > the test. > > > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe > > > > --- > > .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/debug-exceptions.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/debug-exceptions.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/debug-exceptions.c > > index ab8860e3a9fa..9fccfeebccd3 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/debug-exceptions.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/debug-exceptions.c > > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ > > #define DBGBCR_EXEC (0x0 << 3) > > #define DBGBCR_EL1 (0x1 << 1) > > #define DBGBCR_E (0x1 << 0) > > +#define DBGBCR_LBN_SHIFT 16 > > +#define DBGBCR_BT_SHIFT 20 > > +#define DBGBCR_BT_ADDR_LINK_CTX (0x1 << DBGBCR_BT_SHIFT) > > +#define DBGBCR_BT_CTX_LINK (0x3 << DBGBCR_BT_SHIFT) > > > > #define DBGWCR_LEN8 (0xff << 5) > > #define DBGWCR_RD (0x1 << 3) > > @@ -21,7 +25,7 @@ > > #define SPSR_D (1 << 9) > > #define SPSR_SS (1 << 21) > > > > -extern unsigned char sw_bp, sw_bp2, hw_bp, hw_bp2, bp_svc, bp_brk, hw_wp, ss_start; > > +extern unsigned char sw_bp, sw_bp2, hw_bp, hw_bp2, bp_svc, bp_brk, hw_wp, ss_start, hw_bp_ctx; > > static volatile uint64_t sw_bp_addr, hw_bp_addr; > > static volatile uint64_t wp_addr, wp_data_addr; > > static volatile uint64_t svc_addr; > > @@ -103,6 +107,7 @@ static void reset_debug_state(void) > > isb(); > > > > write_sysreg(0, mdscr_el1); > > + write_sysreg(0, contextidr_el1); > > > > /* Reset all bcr/bvr/wcr/wvr registers */ > > dfr0 = read_sysreg(id_aa64dfr0_el1); > > @@ -164,6 +169,28 @@ static void install_hw_bp(uint8_t bpn, uint64_t addr) > > enable_debug_bwp_exception(); > > } > > > > +void install_hw_bp_ctx(uint8_t addr_bp, uint8_t ctx_bp, uint64_t addr, > > + uint64_t ctx) > > +{ > > + uint32_t addr_bcr, ctx_bcr; > > + > > + /* Setup a context-aware breakpoint */ > > + ctx_bcr = DBGBCR_LEN8 | DBGBCR_EXEC | DBGBCR_EL1 | DBGBCR_E | > > + DBGBCR_BT_CTX_LINK; > > + write_dbgbcr(ctx_bp, ctx_bcr); > > + write_dbgbvr(ctx_bp, ctx); > > + > > + /* Setup a linked breakpoint (linked to the context-aware breakpoint) */ > > + addr_bcr = DBGBCR_LEN8 | DBGBCR_EXEC | DBGBCR_EL1 | DBGBCR_E | > > + DBGBCR_BT_ADDR_LINK_CTX | > > + ((uint32_t)ctx_bp << DBGBCR_LBN_SHIFT); > > + write_dbgbcr(addr_bp, addr_bcr); > > + write_dbgbvr(addr_bp, addr); > > + isb(); > > + > > + enable_debug_bwp_exception(); > > +} > > + > > static void install_ss(void) > > { > > uint32_t mdscr; > > @@ -177,8 +204,10 @@ static void install_ss(void) > > > > static volatile char write_data; > > > > -static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn) > > +static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn, uint8_t ctx_bpn) > > { > > + uint64_t ctx = 0x1; /* a random context number */ > > + > > GUEST_SYNC(0); > > > > /* Software-breakpoint */ > > @@ -281,6 +310,19 @@ static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn) > > : : : "x0"); > > GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(ss_addr[0], 0); > > > > I've just noticed that I should add GUEST_SYNC(10) here, use > GUEST_SYNC(11) for the following test case, and update the > stage limit value in the loop in userspace code. > > Or I might consider removing the stage management code itself. > It doesn't appear to be very useful to me, and I would think > we could easily forget to update it :-) > > Thank you, > Reiji > Yes, it's better to remove it. The intention was to make sure the guest generates the expected sequence of exits. In this case for example, "1, .., 11, DONE" would be correct, but "1, .., 11, 12, DONE" would not. > > + /* Linked hardware-breakpoint */ > > + hw_bp_addr = 0; > > + reset_debug_state(); > > + install_hw_bp_ctx(bpn, ctx_bpn, PC(hw_bp_ctx), ctx); > > + /* Set context id */ > > + write_sysreg(ctx, contextidr_el1); > > + isb(); > > + asm volatile("hw_bp_ctx: nop"); > > + write_sysreg(0, contextidr_el1); > > + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(hw_bp_addr, PC(hw_bp_ctx)); > > + > > + GUEST_SYNC(10); > > + > > GUEST_DONE(); > > } > > > > @@ -327,6 +369,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > struct ucall uc; > > int stage; > > uint64_t aa64dfr0; > > + uint8_t brps; > > > > vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); > > ucall_init(vm, NULL); > > @@ -349,8 +392,16 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > vm_install_sync_handler(vm, VECTOR_SYNC_CURRENT, > > ESR_EC_SVC64, guest_svc_handler); > > > > - /* Run tests with breakpoint#0 and watchpoint#0. */ > > - vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 2, 0, 0); > > + /* Number of breakpoints, minus 1 */ > > + brps = cpuid_get_ufield(aa64dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_BRPS_SHIFT); > > + __TEST_REQUIRE(brps > 0, "At least two breakpoints are required"); > > + > > + /* > > + * Run tests with breakpoint#0 and watchpoint#0, and the higiest > > + * numbered (context-aware) breakpoint. > > + */ > > + vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 3, 0, 0, brps); > > + > > for (stage = 0; stage < 11; stage++) { > > vcpu_run(vcpu); > > > > -- > > 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog > > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel