public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi•com (Masami Hiramatsu)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:32:52 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <528114C4.5000506@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131111105812.GC28302@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>

(2013/11/11 19:58), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:51:52AM +0000, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2013/11/11 16:54), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>>> In fact, how do you avoid a race with hardware breakpoints? E.g., somebody
>>>>>> places a hardware breakpoint on an instruction in the kernel for which
>>>>>> kprobes has patched in a brk. We take the hardware breakpoint, disable the
>>>>>> breakpoint and set up a single step before returning to the brk. The brk
>>>>>> then traps, but we must take care not to disable single-step and/or unmask
>>>>>> debug exceptions, because that will cause the hardware breakpoint code to
>>>>>> re-arm its breakpoint before we've stepped off the brk instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, frankly to say, this kind of race issue is not seriously discussed
>>>>> on x86 too, since kgdb is still a special tool (not used on the production
>>>>> system).
>>>>> I think under such situation kgdb operator must have full control of the
>>>>> system, and he can (and has to) avoid such kind of race.
>>>> Masami,
>>>>
>>>> Hmm I think in same lines, but not sure if we expect kprobes to be
>>>> able to work fool-proof along with kgdb or hw breakpoints ?
>>>
>>> For hw breakpoint, yes, we finally get check each other to safely
>>> use it even if one rejects the other one at some points(address).
>>> Since the hw breakpoint is already open for normal user via perf,
>>> we should do it. But the policy still needs to be discussed.
>>
>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
>> work with it.
> 
> Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
> ARM, we have to manually remove the breakpoint, perform a single-step, then
> add the breakpoint again. If we re-enable debug exceptions in the kprobe
> handler, the step will complete early and we'll never step off the
> breakpoint.

I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?

> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model, since
> I'm fairly sure it won't work as expected without some additional code.

OK, anyway, for testing same one, we need to port ftrace first. So the next
plan is to make a kprobe module to put a probe (which just printk something)
on a specific function (e.g. vfs_symlink), and run perf record with
hw-breakpoint as below

$ perf record -e "mem:0xXXXXXX:k" ln -s /dev/null /tmp/foo

Note that 0xXXXXXX is the address of vfs_symlink.

After that, you can see the message in dmesg and also check the perf result
with "sudo perf script --dump" (you can find a PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE entry if
it works)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com

  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-11 17:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-17 11:17 [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] ARM64: Add kernel probes(Kprobes) support Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC v4 1/6] arm64: support single-step and breakpoint handler hooks Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-25 15:22   ` Will Deacon
2013-12-03 14:33     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-12-03 19:44       ` Will Deacon
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC 2/6] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-08 16:56   ` Will Deacon
2013-11-09  9:10     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-11  5:39       ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-11  7:54         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-11 10:51           ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-11 10:58             ` Will Deacon
2013-11-11 17:32               ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2013-11-12  6:23                 ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-12  7:27                   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-12  8:44                     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-12 10:17                       ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-12 10:55                         ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-12 14:11                           ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-12 16:59                           ` Steven Rostedt
2013-11-13 16:05                             ` Masami Hiramatsu
     [not found]                     ` <CA+b37P1sNsEXrJFfVL51sZ-SeGNCBiwXnOwCiFY8CBwSXPw+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
2013-11-13  7:08                       ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-13 14:07                       ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-11-13 14:31                       ` Will Deacon
2013-11-13 15:55                         ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-15 16:39                           ` Will Deacon
2013-11-18  6:55                             ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-18  8:51                               ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-13 13:58               ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-13 14:20                 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-11  5:35     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-11 11:21       ` Will Deacon
2013-11-12  6:52         ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-15 16:37           ` Will Deacon
2013-11-18  6:43             ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC 3/6] arm64: Kprobes instruction simulation support Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-08 17:03   ` Will Deacon
2013-11-11  5:58     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC 4/6] arm64: Add kernel return probes support(kretprobes) Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-08 17:04   ` Will Deacon
2013-11-11  4:29     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-11-11  7:53       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2013-11-11  8:55         ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] arm64: Enable kprobes support for arm64 platform Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-17 11:17 ` [PATCH RFC 6/6] kprobes: Add cases for arm and arm64 in sample module Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-25 15:24   ` Will Deacon
2013-11-06 11:05     ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-10-18  8:32 ` [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] ARM64: Add kernel probes(Kprobes) support Masami Hiramatsu
2013-10-21  4:17   ` Sandeepa Prabhu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=528114C4.5000506@hitachi.com \
    --to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi$(echo .)com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox