Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] perf tools: Use offset instead of dwarfnum in register table.

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:20:03 +0000

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:54:51AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:02:29 +0000
> Will Deacon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 05:03:20PM +0800, Hekuang wrote:
> > > hi
> > > 
> > > ? 2017/2/3 21:00, Will Deacon ??:
> > > >On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 11:06:05AM +0000, He Kuang wrote:
> > > >>This patch changes the 'dwarfnum' to 'offset' in register table, so
> > > >>the index of array becomes the dwarfnum (the index of each register
> > > >>defined by DWARF) and the "offset" member means the byte-offset of the
> > > >>register in (user_)pt_regs. This change makes the code consistent with
> > > >>x86.
> > > >>
> > > >>Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email-masked]>
> > > >>Signed-off-by: He Kuang <[email-masked]>
> > > >>---
> > > >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/dwarf-regs.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > >>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> > > >Thanks for splitting this up. Comment below.
> > > >
> > > >>diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/dwarf-regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/dwarf-regs.c
> > > >>index d49efeb..090f36b 100644
> > > >>--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/dwarf-regs.c
> > > >>+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/dwarf-regs.c
> > > >>@@ -9,72 +9,69 @@
> > > >>   */
> > > >>  #include <stddef.h>
> > > >>+#include <linux/ptrace.h> /* for struct user_pt_regs */
> > > >>  #include <dwarf-regs.h>
> > > >>-struct pt_regs_dwarfnum {
> > > >>+struct pt_regs_offset {
> > > >>  	const char *name;
> > > >>-	unsigned int dwarfnum;
> > > >>+	int offset;
> > > >>  };
> > > >>-#define STR(s) #s
> > > >>-#define REG_DWARFNUM_NAME(r, num) {.name = r, .dwarfnum = num}
> > > >>-#define GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(num) \
> > > >>-	{.name = STR(%x##num), .dwarfnum = num}
> > > >>-#define REG_DWARFNUM_END {.name = NULL, .dwarfnum = 0}
> > > >>-
> > > >>  /*
> > > >>   * Reference:
> > > >>   * http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0057b/IHI0057B_aadwarf64.pdf
> > > >>   */
> > > >>-static const struct pt_regs_dwarfnum regdwarfnum_table[] = {
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(0),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(1),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(2),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(3),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(4),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(5),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(6),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(7),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(8),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(9),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(10),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(11),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(12),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(13),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(14),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(15),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(16),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(17),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(18),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(19),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(20),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(21),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(22),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(23),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(24),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(25),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(26),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(27),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(28),
> > > >>-	GPR_DWARFNUM_NAME(29),
> > > >>-	REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%lr", 30),
> > > >>-	REG_DWARFNUM_NAME("%sp", 31),
> > > >>-	REG_DWARFNUM_END,
> > > >>-};
> > > >>+#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r, num) {.name = "%" #r,			\
> > > >>+			.offset = offsetof(struct user_pt_regs, regs[num])}
> > > >Whilst this works in practice, this is undefined behaviour for "sp", since
> > > >you'll go off the end of the regs array.
> > > 
> > > It's not undefined behaviour here,
> > > struct user_pt_regs {
> > >         __u64           regs[31];
> > >         __u64           sp;
> > >         __u64           pc;
> > >         __u64           pstate;
> > > };
> > > user_pt_regs->regs[31] is user_pt_regs->sp and the offset value is correct.
> > 
> > I think it's undefined from the C standard perspective.
> 
> Actually, this '%sp' is used for kprobes/uprobes dynamic events, which only 
> depend on how regs_query_register_offset()@arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c is implemented.
> And also, since perf-probe uses debuginfo, it can find out the base register.
> 
> So we don't need to care the C standard in this file :)

Up to the perf tool maintainers really, but I expect it will irritate
anybody running UBSAN and it's really not difficult to fix.

Will