Re: [PATCH][V3] arm64: perf: Get the wrong PC value in REGS_ABI_32 mode

[Jiping Ma <Jiping.Ma2@windriver.com>]

On 05/27/2020 11:19 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:33:00AM +0800, Jiping Ma wrote:
>>
>> On 05/26/2020 06:26 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:52:07AM +0800, Jiping Ma wrote:
>>>> Modified the patch subject and the change description.
>>>>
>>>> PC value is get from regs[15] in REGS_ABI_32 mode, but correct PC
>>>> is regs->pc(regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_PC]) in arm64 kernel, which caused
>>>> that perf can not parser the backtrace of app with dwarf mode in the
>>>> 32bit system and 64bit kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@windriver.com>
>>> Thanks for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c | 4 ++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> index 0bbac61..0ef2880 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>>>    	if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_PC)
>>>>    		return regs->pc;
>>>> +	if (perf_reg_abi(current) == PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32
>>>> +		&& idx == 15)
>>>> +		return regs->pc;
>>> I think there are some more issues here, and we may need a more
>>> substantial rework. For a compat thread, we always expose
>>> PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32 via per_reg_abi(), but for some reason
>>> perf_reg_value() also munges the compat SP/LR into their ARM64
>>> equivalents, which don't exist in the 32-bit sample ABI. We also don't
>>> zero the regs that don't exist in 32-bit (including the aliasing PC).
>>>
>>> I reckon what we should do is have seperate functions for the two ABIs,
>>> to ensure we don't conflate them, e.g.
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value_abi32(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> 	if ((u32)idx > PERF_REG_ARM32_PC)
>>> 		return 0;
>>> 	if (idx == PERF_REG_ARM32_PC)
>>> 		return regs->pc;
>>> 	
>>> 	/*
>>> 	 * Compat SP and LR already in-place
>>> 	 */
>>> 	return regs->regs[idx];
>>> }
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value_abi64(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> 	if ((u32)idx > PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX)
>>> 		return 0;
>>> 	if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
>>> 		return regs->sp;
>>> 	if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_PC)
>>> 		return regs->pc;
>>> 	
>>> 	reutrn regs->regs[idx];
>>> }
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> 	if (compat_user_mode(regs))
>>> 		return perf_reg_value_abi32(regs, idx);
>>> 	else
>>> 		return perf_reg_value_abi64(regs, idx);
>>> }
>> This modification can not fix our issue,  we need
>> perf_reg_abi(current) == PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32 to judge if it is 32-bit
>> task or not,
>> then return the correct PC value.
> I must be missing something here.
>
> The core code perf_reg_abi(task) is called with the task being sampled,
> and the regs are from the task being sampled. For a userspace sample for
> a compat task, compat_user_mode(regs) should be equivalent to the
> is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(task)) check.
>
> What am I missing?
This issue caused by PC value is not correct. regs are sampled in 
function perf_output_sample_regs, that call perf_reg_value(regs, bit) to 
get PC value.
PC value is regs[15] in perf_reg_value() function. it should be regs[32].

perf_output_sample_regs(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
                         struct pt_regs *regs, u64 mask)
{
         int bit;
         DECLARE_BITMAP(_mask, 64);

         bitmap_from_u64(_mask, mask);
         for_each_set_bit(bit, _mask, sizeof(mask) * BITS_PER_BYTE) {
                 u64 val;

                 val = perf_reg_value(regs, bit);
                 perf_output_put(handle, val);
         }
}

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel