Michael Neuling wrote:
In message <4b29ee5f.9020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael Neuling wrote:
+ * regs_get_argument_nth() - get Nth argument at function call
+ * @regs: pt_regs which contains registers at function entry.
+ * @n: argument number.
+ *
+ * regs_get_argument_nth() returns @n th argument of a function call.
+ * Since usually the kernel stack will be changed right after function en
try
,
+ * you must use this at function entry. If the @n th entry is NOT in the
+ * kernel stack or pt_regs, this returns 0.
+ */
+unsigned long regs_get_argument_nth(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int n)
+{
+ if (n < ARRAY_SIZE(arg_offs_table))
+ return *(unsigned long *)((char *)regs + arg_offs_table[n]);
+ else {
+ /*
+ * If more arguments are passed that can be stored in
+ * registers, the remaining arguments are stored in the
+ * parameter save area located at fixed offset from stack
+ * pointer.
+ * Following the PowerPC ABI, the first few arguments are
+ * actually passed in registers (r3-r10), with equivalent space
+ * left unused in the parameter save area.
+ */
+ n += (PARAMETER_SAVE_AREA_OFFSET / sizeof(unsigned long));
+ return regs_get_kernel_stack_nth(regs, n);
How do we handle FP args?
Currently this patch does not support FP args.
This might be OK. I don't think we use floating point parameters in any
function definitions in the kernel.
We do use altivec in the raid6 driver (drivers/md/raid6altivec.uc) but
they are static inline, so they probably don't even end up as
functions.
I guess we need to make sure that we're not limiting the interface in
such a way that we can't support it later if the above changes.
regs_get_argument_nth returns an unsigned long which makes returning a
128 bit VMX register impossible. This might be a show stopper for me.
How are the x86 guys dealing with this?
Nope, x86 does not deal with bigger registers (Masami, correct me if I
am wrong). The return data type is opaque to user. Hence this enables us
to handle any such situations in future without effecting user space API.
+ }
+}
+/*
* does not yet catch signals sent when the child dies.
* in exit.c or in signal.c.
*/
Index: linux-2.6-tip/kernel/trace/Kconfig
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-tip.orig/kernel/trace/Kconfig
+++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/trace/Kconfig
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ config BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE
config KPROBE_EVENT
depends on KPROBES
- depends on X86
+ depends on X86 || PPC
bool "Enable kprobes-based dynamic events"
select TRACING
default y
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Thanks for reviewing.
We are creating a new user space API here, so I'm keen for others to take
a good look at the interface before we commit to something we are going
to have to keep forever.
Who is the main consumer of this (/me is pretty ignorant of kprobes)?
What do they think of the interface?
The user space API are already present in the upstream kernel and
currently only supported architecture is x86. This patch provides ppc
architecture specific interfaces that enables powerpc also in par with x86.
The main consumer would be kernel developers who would like to see
register values, arguments and stack when the probe hits at given text
address.
Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev