From: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Xie Yuanbin <xieyuanbin1@huawei.com>,
clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, linusw@kernel.org,
arnd@arndb.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
liaohua4@huawei.com, lilinjie8@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: enable interrupts when arm_notify_die() is handling user mode errors
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:20:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aj0A3SjMhR24e8fP@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260625093008.e5I4bh-_@linutronix.de>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:30:08AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-06-25 10:05:52 [+0100], Russell King wrote:
> > > for this but actual breakpoint handling might be broken or is it just
> > > me? But then your stack trace looks like mine so :/
> >
> > ARM Linux doesn't use BKPT. BKPT was an instruction introduced by Arm
> > Ltd in ARMv5TE. Prior to this, we use a UDF instruction instead (we
> > had to pick something!) and gdb and other tools use that as a
> > breapoint.
> >
> > Moreover, BKPT isn't guaranteed to trap to the kernel, especially when
> > there is a hardware debugger connected. In that case, DDI0100E states
> > that use of BKPT must be according to the instructions provided with
> > the hardware debugger. This makes BKPT unsuitable for use.
>
> So you are saying this:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> index e62cc4be5adf6..11ac69113eca2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> @@ -595,6 +595,16 @@ do_bad(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static int do_debug_event(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
> + struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + if (!user_mode(regs))
> + return 1;
> + local_irq_enable();
> + ptrace_break(regs);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> struct fsr_info {
> int (*fn)(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> int sig;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> index f2be95197265d..bfd718f64020c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-2level.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static struct fsr_info fsr_info[] = {
> static struct fsr_info ifsr_info[] = {
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 0" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 1" },
> - { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "debug event" },
> + { do_debug_event, SIGBUS, 0, "debug event" },
> { do_bad, SIGSEGV, SEGV_ACCERR, "section access flag fault" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 4" },
> { do_translation_fault, SIGSEGV, SEGV_MAPERR, "section translation fault" },
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> index d0ae2963656a6..96c1d45d20d9e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fsr-3level.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static struct fsr_info fsr_info[] = {
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "synchronous parity error (translation table walk" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 32" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRALN, "alignment fault" },
> - { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "debug event" },
> + { do_debug_event, SIGBUS, 0, "debug event" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 35" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 36" },
> { do_bad, SIGBUS, 0, "unknown 37" },
>
> is not worth doing it? With this I can my little testcase working.
No, it isn't, because if you enable PERF_EVENTS then BKPT breaks.
hw_breakpoint.c claims this vector.
Moreover, in older architectures, FSR=2 means "Terminal exception"
which is defined as "This indicates that an irrecoverable fault has
occurred. The circumstances under which this can happen (if at all)
are IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED." - from DDI0100E (which includes
ARMv5TE). In DDI0100F, this encoding was changed to "Debug exception".
Hence, the above can not be unconditional.
Then, we also have that FSR=2 is generated for a number of different
reasons (including hardware debug events) which may trigger.
Also a hardware debugger (e.g. connected via JTAG) could decide to
pass a BKPT exception on, and that could happen from the kernel. I
believe LLVM CFI uses BKPT (see LinusW's commit c3f89986fde7 ("ARM:
9391/2: hw_breakpoint: Handle CFI breakpoints")
BKPT is a total mess.
> That would be exc_int3() from arch/x86/kernel/traps.c.
> Besides doing "notify_die(DIE_INT3, "int3", regs, 0, X86_TRAP_BP, SIGTRAP);"
>
> it does cond_local_irq_enable() which enables the interrupts if they
> were enabled by the "caller", sends the signal (SIGTRAP).
I'm happy with that approach as far as interrupts go, but we can't
change the behaviour for FSR=2 again, beyond fixing LinusW's
commit (which has recently been reported as a regression.)
Note that the change which makes this raise a SIGTRAP rather than
SIGBUS when PERF_EVENTS=y could _also_ be reported as a regression
that we would have to fix, and making FSR=2 raise a SIGTRAP now
could very well invite that regression to be reported.
Essentially, I don't think we can "fix" BKPT to always raise SIGTRAP.
The BKPT instruction is something the kernel has never _officially_
supported.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-25 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-25 7:35 [PATCH] ARM: enable interrupts when arm_notify_die() is handling user mode errors Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25 8:50 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25 9:05 ` Russell King
2026-06-25 9:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25 10:20 ` Russell King [this message]
2026-06-25 12:08 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-25 10:00 ` Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25 10:23 ` Russell King
2026-06-25 12:26 ` Xie Yuanbin
2026-06-25 15:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=aj0A3SjMhR24e8fP@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=liaohua4@huawei.com \
--cc=lilinjie8@huawei.com \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=xieyuanbin1@huawei.com \
/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