Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1311495
| From | "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Store breakpoint single step state into pstate |
| Date | 2016-01-18 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qSgtP-8vA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qINr4-7o4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qJ3cu-o7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNgEa-609-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNs2C-5ze-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQaCe-3TN-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2016/1/13 1:06, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:06:15PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote: >> On 2016/1/5 0:55, Will Deacon wrote: >>> The problem seems to be that we take the debug exception before the >>> breakpointed instruction has been executed and call perf_bp_event at >>> that moment, so when we single-step the faulting instruction we actually >>> step into the SIGIO handler and end up getting stuck. >>> >>> Your fix doesn't really address this afaict, in that you don't (can't?) >>> handle: >>> >>> * A longjmp out of a signal handler >>> * A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction >>> * User-controlled single-step from a signal handler that enables a >>> breakpoint explicitly >>> * Nested signals >> Please have a look at [1], which I improve test__bp_signal() to >> check bullet 2 and 4 you mentioned above. Seems my fix is correct. >> >> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1451969880-14877-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > I'm still really uneasy about this change. Pairing up the signal delivery > with the sigreturn to keep track of the debug state is extremely fragile > and I'm not keen on adding this logic there. I also think we need to > track the address that the breakpoint is originally taken on so that we > can only perform the extra sigreturn work if we're returning to the same > instruction. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to do this for signals other > than those generated directly by a breakpoint. > > An alternative would be to postpone the signal delivery until after the > stepping has been taken care of, but that's a change in ABI and I worry > we'll break somebody relying on the current behaviour. > > What exactly does x86 do? I couldn't figure it out from the code. Actually x86 does similar thing as what this patch does. RF bit in x86_64's eflags prohibit debug exception raises. It is set by x86_64's debug handler to avoid recursion. x86_64 need setting this bit in breakpoint handler because it needs to jump back to original instruction and single-step on it, similar to ARM64. The RF bit in eflags records a state that the process shouldn't generate debug exception. It is part of the state of a process, and should be saved and cleared if transfers to signal handler. This patch does the same thing: create two bits in pstate to indicate the states that 'a process should not raises watchpoint/breakpoint exceptions', maintains them in kernel, cleans them for signal handler and save them in signal frame. Thank you.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Store breakpoint single step state into pstate "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com> - 2016-01-18 12:50 +0100
csiph-web