On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:18:49PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 06:45:22AM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Handle debug exception notifications.
> > + */
> > +int __kprobes hw_breakpoint_handler(struct die_args *args)
> > +{
> > +   int rc = NOTIFY_STOP;
> > +   struct hw_breakpoint *bp;
> > +   struct pt_regs *regs = args->regs;
> > +   unsigned long dar = regs->dar;
> > +   int cpu, stepped = 1;
> > +
> > +   /* Disable breakpoints during exception handling */
> > +   set_dabr(0);
> > +
> > +   cpu = get_cpu();
> > +   /* Determine whether kernel- or user-space address is the trigger */
> > +   bp = (hbp_kernel_pos == HBP_NUM) ? current->thread.hbp[0] :
> > +                                   per_cpu(this_hbp_kernel[0], cpu);
> > +   /*
> > +    * bp can be NULL due to lazy debug register switching
> > +    * or due to the delay between updates of hbp_kernel_pos
> > +    * and this_hbp_kernel.
> > +    */
> > +   if (!bp)
> > +           goto out;
> > +
> > +   if (dar == bp->info.address)
> > +           per_cpu(dabr_data, cpu) = (hbp_kernel_pos == HBP_NUM) ?
> > +                                           current->thread.dabr : kdabr;
> > +   else {
> > +           /*
> > +            * This exception is triggered not because of a memory access on
> > +            * the monitored variable but in the double-word address range
> > +            * in which it is contained. We will consume this exception,
> > +            * considering it as 'noise'.
> > +            */
> > +           rc = NOTIFY_STOP;
> > +           goto out;
> > +   }
> > +   (bp->triggered)(bp, regs);
> 
> This will fire the handler function before the instruction has
> executed.  I remember seeing a comment in the other patchset saying
> the function would be triggered after execution, but I'm not sure if
> that was in generic of x86-specific code.
> 

Yes, I see that the comment

" * @triggered: callback invoked after target address access"

in include/asm-generic/hw_breakpoint.h which has to be changed. I will
do the same in a follow-on patch to the generic interface after its
integration.

> > +
> > +   stepped = emulate_step(regs, regs->nip);
> > +   /*
> > +    * Single-step the causative instruction manually if
> > +    * emulate_step() could not execute it
> > +    */
> > +   if (stepped == 0) {
> > +           regs->msr |= MSR_SE;
> > +           goto out;
> > +   }
> > +   set_dabr(per_cpu(dabr_data, cpu));
> > +   per_cpu(dabr_data, cpu) = 0;
> 
> This curly arrangement of put_cpu() / get_cpu() could probably do with
> some more comments...
> 

The put_cpu() usage in hw_breakpoint_handler() and
single_step_dabr_instruction() is actually wrapped with comments.

Do you want a comment about the usage of the per_cpu data variable used
above, or a more descriptive comment in places where put_cpu() is use?

> > +out:
> > +   /* Enable pre-emption only if single-stepping is finished */
> > +   if (stepped)
> > +           put_cpu_no_resched();
> > +   return rc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Handle single-step exceptions following a DABR hit.
> > + */
> > +int __kprobes single_step_dabr_instruction(struct die_args *args)
> > +{
> > +   struct pt_regs *regs = args->regs;
> > +   int cpu = get_cpu();
> > +   int ret = NOTIFY_DONE;
> > +   siginfo_t info;
> > +   unsigned long this_dabr_data = per_cpu(dabr_data, cpu);
> > +
> > +   /*
> > +    * Check if we are single-stepping as a result of a
> > +    * previous HW Breakpoint exception
> > +    */
> > +   if (this_dabr_data == 0)
> > +           goto out;
> > +
> > +   regs->msr &= ~MSR_SE;
> > +   /* Deliver signal to user-space */
> > +   if (this_dabr_data < TASK_SIZE) {
> > +           info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
> > +           info.si_errno = 0;
> > +           info.si_code = TRAP_HWBKPT;
> > +           info.si_addr = (void __user *)(per_cpu(dabr_data, cpu));
> > +           force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> > +   }
> 
> Ok, this is a behaviour change - the old do_dabr() code fired the
> SIGTRAP before the instruction completed, but this will fire it
> after.  It seems simpler and safer to move this into ptrace's
> triggered function.
> 

Thanks, I realise that this changes the user-space behaviour.
The one-shot hardware breakpoint exception behaviour and also
single-stepping the instruction have changed.

I will modify the hw_breakpoint_handler() to overcome this problem.

Thanks,
K.Prasad

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Reply via email to