and applying it won't break other arch users, but having a/rev-by from
> ppc developers should speed up this process.
Hi Arnaldo,
Yes, I have reviewed the patches. So, for all patches...
Reviewed-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
___
Lin
| 57 --
> tools/perf/util/symbol-elf.c | 11 -
> tools/perf/util/symbol.c | 6 +++
> 9 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/elf-sym-decode.c
> create
-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
.../features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt
b/Documentation/features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt
index b8999d8..0a3ca33
To be used for features we will not support on a particular architecture.
The git log that adds this needs to provide the justification 'why?'
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
Documentation/features/arch-support.txt |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
di
: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
.../features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt
b/Documentation/features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt
index b8999d8..73662f9
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:21:50AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On 2015/07/16 19:56, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > Kprobes uses a breakpoint instruction to trap into execution flow
> > and the probed instruction is single-stepped from an alternate location.
&
To be used for features we will not support on a particular architecture.
The git log that adds this needs to provide the justification 'why?'
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
Documentation/features/arch-support.txt |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
di
had with a direct
jump instead of a breakpoint, but the caveats need to be traded off
with the complexity it brings in.
For now, mark OPTPROBES na for powerpc.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
.../features/debug/optprobes/arch-support.txt |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:53:07PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 11:21 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On 2015/07/16 19:56, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > Kprobes uses a breakpoint instruction to trap into execution flow
> > > an
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Tom Musta wrote:
> > > Isn't that code occasionally used with uprobes too nowadays ?
> >
> > Yes. I believe so.
>
> I'm going to back-pedal a little. I reread code and can connect
> single step code to kprobes but not necessarily to uprobes. So
> I am n
;
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose
> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakaynahalli
> Cc: Kumar Gala
> Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
GDB uses a variant of the trap instruction that is different from the
one used by uprobes. Currently, running gdb on a program being traced
by uprobes causes an endless loop since uprobes doesn't understand
that the trap is inserted by some other entity and
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:26:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Ananth,
>
> First of all, let me remind that I know nothing about powerpc ;)
>
> But iirc we already discussed this a bit, I forgot the details but
> still I have some concerns...
>
> On 03/20, Ananth N
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:43:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But we did not install UPROBE_SWBP_INSN. Is it fine? I hope yes, just to
> > verify. If not, we need 2 definitions. is_uprobe_insn() should still check
> > insns == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN, and is_swbp_
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:06:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:26:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > But, at the same time, is the new definition fine for verify_opcode()?
> &
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:07:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:43:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But we did not
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 05:00:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/21, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> ?
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:07:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 03/20, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > >
> > > > O
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 04:58:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/21, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:06:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > > > But we did not install UPROBE_SWBP_INSN. Is it fine? I hope yes, jus
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Some architectures like powerpc have multiple variants of the trap
instruction. Introduce an additional helper is_trap_insn() for run-time
handling of non-uprobe traps on such architectures.
While there, change is_swbp_at_addr() to is_trap_at_addr() for reading
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Powerpc has many trap variants that could be used by entities like gdb.
Currently, running gdb on a program being traced by uprobes causes an
endless loop since uprobes doesn't understand that the trap was inserted
by some other entity and a SIGTRAP needs
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
The current implementation of uprobes assumes that uprobes always wins
even when a register request is at a location with a conditional
breakpoint by some other entity. Refer to [1] for more details.
Remove the breakpoint instruction check during registration on
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/22, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > +/**
> > + * is_trap_insn - check if instruction is breakpoint instruction.
> > + * @insn: instruction to be checked.
> > + * Default implementatio
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Some architectures like powerpc have multiple variants of the trap
instruction. Introduce an additional helper is_trap_insn() for run-time
handling of non-uprobe traps on such architectures.
While there, change is_swbp_at_addr() to is_trap_at_addr() for reading
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Refuse to place a uprobe if a trap variant already exists in the
file copy at the address.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-3.9-rc3/kernel/events
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Powerpc has many trap variants that could be used by entities like gdb.
Currently, running gdb on a program being traced by uprobes causes an
endless loop since uprobes doesn't understand that the trap was inserted
by some other entity and a SIGTRAP needs
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
prepare_uprobe() already checks if the underlying unstruction
(on file) is a trap variant. We don't need to check this again.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/uprobes.c |6 --
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:14 +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote:
> > Add new return code to rtas_flash to indicate firmware entitlement
> > expiry. This will be used by the update_flash script to return
> > appropriate message to the u
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 03:32:30PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 10:35 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:14 +0530, Vasant Hegde wrot
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:55:51PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
...
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && (!defined(_CALL_ELF) || _CALL_ELF == 1)
> +/*
> + * On PPC64 ABIv1 the function pointer actually points to the
> + * function's descriptor. The first entry in the descriptor is the
> + * address
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:40:00PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/05/08 13:47), Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:55:51PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) &
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:23:01AM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> The branch target should be the func addr, not the addr of func_descr_t.
> So using ppc_function_entry() to generate the right target addr.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan
> ---
> This bug will make ftrace fail to work. It can be tri
lazy pattern.
> > Error: Command Parse Error.
> >
> > Fix this by checking the probe pattern in more detail.
>
> Masami, can I have your Acked-by or Reviewed-by?
Arnaldo,
FWIW, I have reviewed this code...
Reviewed-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
>
&
adjust all the symbols during symbol table load,
> but only adjust the probe trace point.
>
> Cc: Mark Wielaard
> Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann
> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu
> Reported-by: Michael Ellerman
> Sig
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:02:57PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> + if (!pev->uprobes && map->dso->symtab_type == DSO_BINARY_TYPE__KALLSYMS)
> tev->point.offset += PPC64LE_LEP_OFFSET;
uprobes check against kallsysms? Am I missing something here?
Ananth
_
Add user return notifier support for powerpc. Similar to x86, this feature
keys off of the KVM Kconfig.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
Documentation/features/debug/user-ret-profiler/arch-support.txt |2 +-
arch/powerpc/Kconfig|1
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:35:17PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-25-08 at 05:41:10 UTC, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > Add user return notifier support for powerpc. Similar to x86, this feature
> > keys off of the KVM Kconfig.
>
> Please flesh this out.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:03:12PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 12:11 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:35:17PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-25-08 at 05:41:10 UTC, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:29:12PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 08:07 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:03:12PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 12:11 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 07:24:39PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 10:39 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:29:12PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> > > Why is this selected by KVM on PPC if KVM on PPC doesn'
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 06:02:53PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 16:34:07 +1000
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
> > > On 08/08/2018 08:26 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > >> Mahesh J Salgaonkar writes:
> > >>> From: Mahesh Salgaonkar
> > >>>
supported powerpc platforms that
don't have it. Code in the kernel referencing PIR isn't under
a platform ifdef).
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c |6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Index: linux-3.1/arch/po
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18:32AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 11/06/2011 10:47 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > The Processor Identification Register (PIR) on powerpc provides
> > information to decode the processor identification tag. Decoding
> > this informa
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:59:46AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 11/08/2011 12:58 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18:32AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> What use does userspace have for this? If you want to return the
> >> currently
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:48:25AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:11:24AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 10:59:46AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On 11/08/2011 12:58 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:18:14PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 14:18 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> >
> > The Processor Identification Register (PIR) on some powerpc platfor
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:17:55AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > At this rate we're going to end up with no bits left for CPU features
> > way too quickly... Especially for something we only care about once at
> > boot time.
> >
> >
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Add thread_struct.trap_nr and use it to store the last exception
the thread experienced. In this patch, we populate the field at
various places where we force_sig_info() to the process.
This is also used in uprobes to determine if the probed instruction
caused
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
[root@ ~]# ./bin/perf probe -x /lib64/libc.so.6 malloc
Added new event:
probe_libc:malloc(on 0xb4860)
You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
perf record -e
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:59 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> > >
> > > This is the po
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:21:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
...
> > So, the arch agnostic code itself
> > takes care of this case...
>
> Yes. I forgot about install_breakpoint()->is_swbp_insn() check which
> returns -ENOTSUPP, somehow I thought arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() does
> this.
>
> > o
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 05:00:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/17, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:21:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, I am not sure. is_swbp_insn(insn), as it is used in the arch agnostic
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Add thread_struct.trap_nr and use it to store the last exception
the thread experienced. In this patch, we populate the field at
various places where we force_sig_info() to the process.
This is also used in uprobes to determine if the probed instruction
caused
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
[root@ ~]# ./bin/perf probe -x /lib64/libc.so.6 malloc
Added new event:
probe_libc:malloc(on 0xb4860)
You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
perf record -e
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
...
> > This is true for Intel like architectures that have *one* swbp
> > instruction. On Powerpc, gdb for instance, can insert a trap variant at
> > the address. Therefore, is_swbp_insn() by definition should return true
> > for all
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:28:20PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 13:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> >
> > This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
>
> Hi Ananth,
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Move is_trap() and relatives to a common file to be shared between *probes.
Code movement only; no change in functionality.
Suggested by Michael Ellerman.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/kprobes.h | 15
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Add thread_struct.trap_nr and use it to store the last exception
the thread experienced. In this patch, we populate the field at
various places where we force_sig_info() to the process.
This is also used in uprobes to determine if the probed instruction
caused
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
[root@ ~]# ./bin/perf probe -x /lib64/libc.so.6 malloc
Added new event:
probe_libc:malloc(on 0xb4860)
You can now use it in all perf tools, such as:
perf record -e
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 05:07:31PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 11:13 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > Yeah. A NULL regs here is a kernel bug, so I think it's actually
> > preferable to crash than silently return.
>
> Or best, if you think there's a remote c
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:26:59PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 13:01 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> >
> > This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
>
> Guys, ca
here
>
> This is a bit more annoying. Ananth, do we need that to be called
> opcode_t for generic reasons or can we make it ppc_opcode_t ? If it has
> to remain, I suppose we can try to change that ATM driver to use a
> different type name...
We can make it ppc_opcode_t. Attached
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:11:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc allyesconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> In file included from drivers/atm/fore200e.c:70:0:
> drivers/atm/fore200e.h:263:3: error: redefinition of typedef '
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On RISC architectures like powerpc, instructions are fixed size.
Instruction analysis on such platforms is just a matter of (insn % 4).
Pass the vaddr at which the uprobe is to be inserted so that
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can flag misaligned registration
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
One TODO in this port compared to x86 is the uprobe abort_xol() logic.
x86 depends on the thread_struct.trap_nr (absent in powerpc) to determine
if a signal was caused when the uprobed instruction
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:27:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:51 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > One TODO in this port compared to x86 is the uprobe abort_xol() logic.
> > x86 depends on the thread_struct.trap_nr (absent in powerpc) to det
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:49 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > +int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct
> > *mm, loff_t vaddr)
>
> Don't we traditionally
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:40:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:49 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:14:23PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar [2012-06-06 11:40:15]:
>
> >
> > * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:23:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Jim Keniston wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:05 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:27:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:51 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:51:54PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:06 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:05 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
&
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:17:44PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:31 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:51:54PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:06 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wro
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:38:17PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:49 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:17:44PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:31 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wro
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On RISC architectures like powerpc, instructions are fixed size.
Instruction analysis on such platforms is just a matter of (insn % 4).
Pass the vaddr at which the uprobe is to be inserted so that
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() can flag misaligned registration
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
This is the port of uprobes to powerpc. Usage is similar to x86.
One TODO in this port compared to x86 is the uprobe abort_xol() logic.
x86 depends on the thread_struct.trap_nr (absent in powerpc) to determine
if a signal was caused when the uprobed instruction
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 02:01:46PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:51 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:38:17PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 11:49 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wro
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:31:51AM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> _stp_arg() has an almost unnoticeable thinko in the argnum handling,
> which causes it to always return u_register("r10"):
>
> 'else (argnum == 8)' should actually be 'else if (argnum == 8)'.
>
> Though, since we check for 'if (ar
Currently emulate_step() emulates mr. instructions without updating cr0
and this can be disastrous. Don't emulate mr.
This bug has been around for a while, but I am not sure if its a worthy
-stable candidate. I'll leave it to Ben do decide.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:42:40PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 17:10 -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Add kernel_trap_sp() on powerpc, based on systemtap's runtime/regs.h.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu
>
> I haven't looked at the usage of it, but it's
sn_slot framework
>
> FWIW, same on s390...
This patch should fix it:
When freeing the instruction slot, the arithmetic to calculate the index
of the slot in the page needs to account for the total size of the
instruction on the various architectures.
Calculate the index correctly
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> When I use kprobe to do something, I found some wired thing.
> >>
> >> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER is disabled:
>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:31:05PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> &g
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:23:28PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> > On Fri
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:39:35AM +0800, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> When enable CONFIG_PREEMPT we will trigger the following call trace:
>
> BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/1/0x1000
> ...
>
> krpobe always goes through the following path:
>
> program_check_exception()
> |
>
Hi Paul,
While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated
instructions?
Ananth
---
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Emulate ori 0,0,0 (nop).
The long winded way is to do:
case 24:
rd = (instr >> 21) & 0x1f;
i
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:22:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated
> > instructions?
>
> Dare I ask why w
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:28:43PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
>
> In message <20100527141203.ga20...@in.ibm.com> you wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated
> > instructions?
> >
> >
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:05:56PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:42:03PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> > While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated
> > instructions?
>
> I have a patch in development t
1203.ga20...@in.ibm.com> you wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated
> > > > instructions?
> > > >
> > > > Ananth
> > > > ---
> > > > From:
On 10/5/20 9:42 AM, Mahesh Salgaonkar wrote:
Every error log reported by OPAL is exported to userspace through a sysfs
interface and notified using kobject_uevent(). The userspace daemon
(opal_errd) then reads the error log and acknowledges it error log is saved
safely to disk. Once acknowledged
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix sparse warnings in powerpc kprobes:
CHECK arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c:277:6: warning: symbol
'kretprobe_trampoline_holder' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/powerpc/kernel/
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:30:51AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> This is a patch that adds kprobes support for book-e style debug. Its
> based on the patch posted by Madhvesh and assumes the exception cleanup
> that I've already posted.
>
> Post to get any feedback. The code needs some cleaning up
On 2/4/21 4:19 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
On 2/4/21 4:17 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
Don't allow Uprobe on 2nd word of a prefixed instruction. As per
ISA 3.1, prefixed instruction should not cross 64-byte boundary.
So don't allow Uprobe on such prefixed instruction as well.
There are two ways prob
We currently unconditionally try to newer emulate instructions on older
Power versions that could cause issues. Gate it.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c | 40
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch
We currently unconditionally try to emulate newer instructions on older
Power versions that could cause issues. Gate it.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c | 40
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch
On 1/20/21 3:44 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
On 2021/01/20 03:16PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
...
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c
index bf7a7d62ae8b..ed119858e5e9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c
@@ -1528,6 +1528,8
We currently unconditionally try to emulate newer instructions on older
Power versions that could cause issues. Gate it.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
[v3] Addressed Naveen's comments on scv and addpcis
[v2] Fixed description
arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c |
eturned 0 which says
'did not emulate, may have to single-step'.
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c | 49 +-
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/p
On 1/23/21 6:03 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli writes:
We currently just percolate the return value from analyze_instr()
to the caller of emulate_step(), especially if it is a -1.
For one particular case (opcode = 4) for instructions that
aren't currently emulate
We currently unconditionally try to emulate newer instructions on older
Power versions that could cause issues. Gate it.
Fixes: 350779a29f11 ("powerpc: Handle most loads and stores in instruction
emulation code")
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
---
[v4] Based on feedback
eturned 0 which says 'did not emulate, may
have to single-step'.
Fixes: 930d6288a26787 ("powerpc: sstep: Add support for maddhd, maddhdu, maddld
instructions")
Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Suggested-by: Michael Ellerman
Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao
Reviewed-by:
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
