Subject: [PATCH v13 05/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

From: [email-masked] (David Long)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:22:47 -0400

On 06/13/2016 02:50 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:10:29 -0400
> David Long <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm64/Kconfig                      |   1 +
>>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h |   5 +
>>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h           |   4 +-
>>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h        |  60 ++++
>>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/probes.h         |  44 +++
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile              |   1 +
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c      |  18 +-
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes-arm64.c       | 144 +++++++++
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes-arm64.h       |  35 +++
>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes.c             | 526 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Not sure why kprobes.c and kprobes-arm64.c are splitted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This comes from the model of the arm32 kprobes code where handling of
>> the low-level instruction simulation is implemented in separate files
>> for 32-bit vs. thumb instructions.  It should make a little more sense
>> in the future when additional instruction simulation code will hopefully
>> be added for those instructions we cannot currently single-step
>> out-of-line.  It also probably *could* be merged into one file.
>
> Hmm, at least the name of arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes-arm64.c is
> meaningless. As we've done in x86, I think we can make it
> arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes/decode-insn.{c,h}
>

I've changed the name to kprobe-decode-insn.[hc], or do you feel 
strongly the three kprobes source files in arch/arm64/kernel need their 
own subdirectory?

>
> [..]
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Return:
>>>> + *   INSN_REJECTED     If instruction is one not allowed to kprobe,
>>>> + *   INSN_GOOD         If instruction is supported and uses instruction slot,
>>>> + *   INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT If instruction is supported but doesn't use its slot.
>>>
>>> Is there any chance to return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT?
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that gets used later when simulation support is added.  I've removed
>> this enum value from this commit and will add it to the later one.
>> Please no one complain about using an enum instead of a bool, it will
>> eventually have three possible values.
>
> OK :)
>
> [..]
>>>> +enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
>>>> +arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t *addr, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	enum kprobe_insn decoded;
>>>> +	kprobe_opcode_t insn = le32_to_cpu(*addr);
>>>> +	kprobe_opcode_t *scan_start = addr - 1;
>>>> +	kprobe_opcode_t *scan_end = addr - MAX_ATOMIC_CONTEXT_SIZE;
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>>>> +	struct module *mod;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (addr >= (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text &&
>>>> +	    scan_end < (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text)
>>>> +		scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)_text;
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(MODULES_VADDR)
>>>> +	else {
>>>> +		preempt_disable();
>>>> +		mod = __module_address((unsigned long)addr);
>>>> +		if (mod && within_module_init((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>>>> +			!within_module_init((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>>>> +			scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->init_layout.base;
>>>> +		else if (mod && within_module_core((unsigned long)addr, mod) &&
>>>> +			!within_module_core((unsigned long)scan_end, mod))
>>>> +			scan_end = (kprobe_opcode_t *)mod->core_layout.base;
>>>
>>> What happen if mod == NULL? it should be return error, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>> No, it should be fine.  It just means it didn't have to do either of the
>> extra checks to limit the end of the search through the code to the
>> boundary of one of the corresponding module text sections. It means the
>> instruction is in the regular kernel (non-module) text segment.
>
> Ah, I see. It is OK then. :)
>
> Thank you,
>
>

Thanks,
-dl