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

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

On 05/28/2020 03:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:06:07AM +0800, Jiping Ma wrote:
>> 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:
>>>> 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);
>>          }
>> }
> Yes, but Mark's point is that checking 'compat_user_mode(regs)' should be
> exactly the same as checking 'perf_reg_abi(current) == PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32'.
> Are you saying that's not the case? If so, please can you provide an example
> of when they are different?
Yes, compat_user_mode(regs) is same with 'perf_reg_abi(current) == 
PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32'.
I tested it.

Jiping
>
> Leaving that aside for a second, I also think it's reasonable to question
> whether this whole interface is busted or not. I looked at it last night but
> struggled to work out what it's supposed to do. Consider these three
> scenarios, all under an arm64 kernel:
>
>    1. 64-bit perf + 64-bit application being profiled
>    2. 64-bit perf + 32-bit application being profiled
>    3. 32-bit perf + 32-bit application being profiled
>
> It looks like the current code is a bodge to try to handle both (2) and
> (3) at the same time:
>
>    - In case (3), userspace only asks about registers 0-15
>    - In case (2), we fudge the higher registers so that 64-bit SP and LR
>      hold the 32-bit values as a bodge to allow a 64-bit dwarf unwinder
>      to unwind the stack
>
> So the idea behind the patch looks fine because case (3) is expecting the PC
> in register 15 and instead gets 0, but the temptation is to clean this up so
> that cases (2) and (3) report the same data to userspace (along the lines of
> Mark's patch), namely only the first 16 registers with the PC moved down. We
> can only do that if the unwinder is happy, which it might be if it only ever
> looks up dwarf register numbers based on the unwind tables in the binary.
> Somebody would need to dig into that. Otherwise, if it generates unconditional
> references to things like register 30 to grab the link register, then we're
> stuck with the bodge and need to special-case the PC.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Will
>


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