From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752085AbbASJHJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:07:09 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50400 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751671AbbASJEI (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:04:08 -0500 Message-ID: <54BCC852.60203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:33:14 +0530 From: Pratyush Anand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Long , Pratyush Anand CC: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" , Steve Capper , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Sandeepa Prabhu , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anil S Keshavamurthy , Masami Hiramatsu , Russell King , William Cohen , davem@davemloft.net, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support References: <1420949002-3726-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <1420949002-3726-4-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org> <54B96662.3030201@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <54B96662.3030201@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 17 January 2015 12:58 AM, David Long wrote: >>> +static bool aarch64_insn_is_steppable(u32 insn) >>> +{ >>> + if (aarch64_get_insn_class(insn) == AARCH64_INSN_CLS_BR_SYS) { >>> + if (aarch64_insn_is_branch(insn)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + /* modification of daif creates issues */ >>> + if (aarch64_insn_is_msr_daif(insn)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (aarch64_insn_is_hint(insn)) >>> + return aarch64_insn_is_nop(insn); >>> + >>> + return true; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (aarch64_insn_uses_literal(insn)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + if (aarch64_insn_is_exclusive(insn)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + return true; >> >> Default true return may not be a good idea until we are sure that we >> are returning false for all possible >> simulation and rejection cases. In my opinion, its better to return >> true only for steppable and false for >> all remaining. >> > > I struggled a little with this when I did it but I decided if the > question was: "should we have to recognize every instruction before > deciding it was single-steppable or should we only recognize > instructions that are *not* single-steppable", maybe it was OK to do the > latter while recognizing extensions to the instruction set *could* end > up (temporarly) allowing us to try and fail (badly) at single-stepping > any problematic new instructions. Certainly opinions could differ. If Lets see what others say, but I see that this approach will result in undesired behavior. For example: a probe has been tried to insert to svc instruction. SVC or any other exception generation instruction is expected to be rejected. But, current aarch64_insn_is_steppable will return true for it and then kprobe/uprobe code will allow to insert probe at that instruction, which will be wrong, no? I mean, I do not see a way to get into last else (INSN_REJECTED) of arm_kprobe_decode_insn. So, if we go with this approach we need to insure that we cover all simulation-able and reject-able cases in aarch64_insn_is_steppable. ~Pratyush > the consensus is that we can't allow this to ever happen (because old > kprobe code is running on new hardware) then I think the only choice is > to return to parsing binary tables. Hopefully I could still find a way > to leverage insn.c in that case.