| Message ID | 1375769526-3526-1-git-send-email-sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:12:06AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: > AArch64 Single Steping and Breakpoint debug exceptions will be > used by multiple debug framworks like kprobes & kgdb. > > This patch implements the hooks for those frameworks to register > their own handlers for handling breakpoint and single step events. > > Reworked the debug exception handler in entry.S: do_dbg to > pass the correct break/step address to the handlers, i.e. FAR_EL1 if > exception is watchpoint, ELR_EL1 for all other debug exceptions. > > Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 20 +++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 +- > 3 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > index a2232d0..aff3a76 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ > #ifndef __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H > #define __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H > > +#include <linux/list.h> > + > #ifdef __KERNEL__ > > #define DBG_ESR_EVT(x) (((x) >> 27) & 0x7) > @@ -62,6 +64,24 @@ struct task_struct; > > #define DBG_ARCH_ID_RESERVED 0 /* In case of ptrace ABI updates. */ > > +struct step_hook { > + struct list_head node; > + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); > +}; Shouldn't that be esr instead of insn? > +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); > +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); > + > +struct break_hook { > + struct list_head node; > + u32 esr_magic; There's nothing magic about it. esr_val instead? > + u32 esr_mask; > + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); > +}; > + > +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); > +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); > + > u8 debug_monitors_arch(void); > > void enable_debug_monitors(enum debug_el el); > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > index cbfacf7..2846327 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > @@ -188,6 +188,54 @@ static void clear_regs_spsr_ss(struct pt_regs *regs) > regs->pstate = spsr; > } > > +/* EL1 Single Step Handler hooks */ > +static LIST_HEAD(step_hook); > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(step_lock); > + > +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); > + list_add(&hook->node, &step_hook); > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); > +} > + > +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); > + list_del(&hook->node); > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); > +} Why do you need to disable IRQs during these operations? > +/* > + * Call registered single step handers > + * There is no Syndrome info to check for determining the handler. > + * So we call all the registered handlers, until the right handler is > + * found which returns zero. > + */ > +static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, > + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) > +{ > + struct step_hook *hook; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); > + list_for_each_entry(hook, &step_hook, node) { > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); Is this safe? Can't you stask the function pointer and break out of the loop when you find it instead? > + if (hook->fn(regs, esr, addr) == 0) > + return 0; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); > + } > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); > + > + return 1; > +} > + > static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, > struct pt_regs *regs) > { > @@ -215,8 +263,11 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, > */ > user_rewind_single_step(current); > } else { > - /* TODO: route to KGDB */ > - pr_warning("Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1\n"); > + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ > + if (call_step_hook(regs, addr, esr) == 0) > + return 0; > + > + pr_warn("unexpected single step exception at %lx!\n", addr); > /* > * Re-enable stepping since we know that we will be > * returning to regs. > @@ -227,11 +278,56 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, > return 0; > } > > + > +static LIST_HEAD(break_hook); > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(break_lock); > + > +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); > + list_add(&hook->node, &break_hook); > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); > +} > + > +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); > + list_del(&hook->node); > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); > +} > + > +static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, > + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) > +{ > + struct break_hook *hook; > + unsigned long flags; > + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, > + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) = NULL; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); > + list_for_each_entry(hook, &break_hook, node) > + if ((esr & hook->esr_mask) == hook->esr_magic) > + fn = hook->fn; > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); That's better! (although I'm still unsure about the interrupts). > + return fn ? fn(regs, esr, addr) : 1; > +} > + > static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, > struct pt_regs *regs) > { > siginfo_t info; > > + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ > + if (call_break_hook(regs, esr, addr) == 0) > + return 0; > + > + pr_warn("unexpected brk exception at %lx, esr=0x%x\n", addr, esr); > + > if (!user_mode(regs)) > return -EFAULT; > > @@ -291,7 +387,7 @@ static int __init debug_traps_init(void) > hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_HWSS, single_step_handler, SIGTRAP, > TRAP_HWBKPT, "single-step handler"); > hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_BRK, brk_handler, SIGTRAP, > - TRAP_BRKPT, "ptrace BRK handler"); > + TRAP_BRKPT, "AArch64 BRK handler"); Why change this name? > return 0; > } > arch_initcall(debug_traps_init); > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > index 6ad781b..e7350bd 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > @@ -288,8 +288,12 @@ el1_dbg: > /* > * Debug exception handling > */ > + mrs x25, far_el1 //far for watchpt Useless comment. How about: "// Watchpoint location"? > + cmp x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_WATCHPT_EL1 > + csel x0, x25, x22, eq //addr: x25->far_el1, x22->elr_el1 > + b.ge do_dbg > tbz x24, #0, el1_inv // EL1 only I'd rather you left the tbz as the first instruction in el1_dbg, then you can also lose the b.ge. Finally, I don't see the need for this patch until we have something like kprobes or kgdb, so I'd rather hold off merging this additional support code until we have a user for it. Cheers, Will
On 13 August 2013 17:02, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:12:06AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: >> AArch64 Single Steping and Breakpoint debug exceptions will be >> used by multiple debug framworks like kprobes & kgdb. >> >> This patch implements the hooks for those frameworks to register >> their own handlers for handling breakpoint and single step events. >> >> Reworked the debug exception handler in entry.S: do_dbg to >> pass the correct break/step address to the handlers, i.e. FAR_EL1 if >> exception is watchpoint, ELR_EL1 for all other debug exceptions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 20 +++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 +- >> 3 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h >> index a2232d0..aff3a76 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h >> @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ >> #ifndef __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H >> #define __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H >> >> +#include <linux/list.h> >> + >> #ifdef __KERNEL__ >> >> #define DBG_ESR_EVT(x) (((x) >> 27) & 0x7) >> @@ -62,6 +64,24 @@ struct task_struct; >> >> #define DBG_ARCH_ID_RESERVED 0 /* In case of ptrace ABI updates. */ >> >> +struct step_hook { >> + struct list_head node; >> + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); >> +}; > > Shouldn't that be esr instead of insn? Right, I will change it to esr in next version of the patch. > >> +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); >> +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); >> + >> +struct break_hook { >> + struct list_head node; >> + u32 esr_magic; > > There's nothing magic about it. esr_val instead? Hmm, I will incorporate this change as well. > >> + u32 esr_mask; >> + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); >> +}; >> + >> +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); >> +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); >> + >> u8 debug_monitors_arch(void); >> >> void enable_debug_monitors(enum debug_el el); >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c >> index cbfacf7..2846327 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c >> @@ -188,6 +188,54 @@ static void clear_regs_spsr_ss(struct pt_regs *regs) >> regs->pstate = spsr; >> } >> >> +/* EL1 Single Step Handler hooks */ >> +static LIST_HEAD(step_hook); >> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(step_lock); >> + >> +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) >> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); >> + list_add(&hook->node, &step_hook); >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); >> +} >> + >> +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) >> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); >> + list_del(&hook->node); >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); >> +} > > Why do you need to disable IRQs during these operations? The linked list needs locking mechanism to protect while getting accessed/updated from multiple CPUs. These API will 'never' be called from interrupt context, so I can convert to spin_lock() variant. > >> +/* >> + * Call registered single step handers >> + * There is no Syndrome info to check for determining the handler. >> + * So we call all the registered handlers, until the right handler is >> + * found which returns zero. >> + */ >> +static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, >> + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) >> +{ >> + struct step_hook *hook; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); >> + list_for_each_entry(hook, &step_hook, node) { >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); > > Is this safe? Can't you stask the function pointer and break out of the loop > when you find it instead? Unlike breakpoints, single step does not provide ESR value to be specified, so there is no way to decide which handler to call. So the implementation is to call all the registered handlers, and individual subsystem (kgdb,kprobes) handlers are in turn responsible for validating and handling it (so we do not break out of loop). Any concerns with this scheme? well, accessing "hook->fn(regs, esr, addr)" without a spin_lock is not safe with multiple CPU. The safe way is to execute the hook function with spin-lock held. I will rework this in next version. > >> + if (hook->fn(regs, esr, addr) == 0) >> + return 0; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); >> + } >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); >> + >> + return 1; >> +} >> + >> static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, >> struct pt_regs *regs) >> { >> @@ -215,8 +263,11 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, >> */ >> user_rewind_single_step(current); >> } else { >> - /* TODO: route to KGDB */ >> - pr_warning("Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1\n"); >> + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ >> + if (call_step_hook(regs, addr, esr) == 0) >> + return 0; >> + >> + pr_warn("unexpected single step exception at %lx!\n", addr); >> /* >> * Re-enable stepping since we know that we will be >> * returning to regs. >> @@ -227,11 +278,56 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, >> return 0; >> } >> >> + >> +static LIST_HEAD(break_hook); >> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(break_lock); >> + >> +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) >> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); >> + list_add(&hook->node, &break_hook); >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); >> +} >> + >> +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) >> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); >> + list_del(&hook->node); >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); >> +} >> + >> +static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, >> + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) >> +{ >> + struct break_hook *hook; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, >> + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) = NULL; >> + >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); >> + list_for_each_entry(hook, &break_hook, node) >> + if ((esr & hook->esr_mask) == hook->esr_magic) >> + fn = hook->fn; >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); > > That's better! (although I'm still unsure about the interrupts). > >> + return fn ? fn(regs, esr, addr) : 1; >> +} >> + >> static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, >> struct pt_regs *regs) >> { >> siginfo_t info; >> >> + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ >> + if (call_break_hook(regs, esr, addr) == 0) >> + return 0; >> + >> + pr_warn("unexpected brk exception at %lx, esr=0x%x\n", addr, esr); >> + >> if (!user_mode(regs)) >> return -EFAULT; >> >> @@ -291,7 +387,7 @@ static int __init debug_traps_init(void) >> hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_HWSS, single_step_handler, SIGTRAP, >> TRAP_HWBKPT, "single-step handler"); >> hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_BRK, brk_handler, SIGTRAP, >> - TRAP_BRKPT, "ptrace BRK handler"); >> + TRAP_BRKPT, "AArch64 BRK handler"); > > Why change this name? The brk_handler will be generic handler for multiple mechanisms like kgdb/kprobes, not just ptrace, so the name should reflect that. > >> return 0; >> } >> arch_initcall(debug_traps_init); >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> index 6ad781b..e7350bd 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> @@ -288,8 +288,12 @@ el1_dbg: >> /* >> * Debug exception handling >> */ >> + mrs x25, far_el1 //far for watchpt > > Useless comment. How about: "// Watchpoint location"? Sounds good, I will change it to "// Watchpoint location" > >> + cmp x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_WATCHPT_EL1 >> + csel x0, x25, x22, eq //addr: x25->far_el1, x22->elr_el1 >> + b.ge do_dbg >> tbz x24, #0, el1_inv // EL1 only > > I'd rather you left the tbz as the first instruction in el1_dbg, then you > can also lose the b.ge. well, my understanding is that the tbz check is needed only for Exception Class < 0x35 as per debug spec. If this is true, and if tbz is first instruction, it fails for breakpoint (EC=0x3A) case and call el1_inv to panic instead of routing to do_debug_exception. I am not sure if we can optimize the code further to eliminate this one branching as well. > > Finally, I don't see the need for this patch until we have something like > kprobes or kgdb, so I'd rather hold off merging this additional support code > until we have a user for it. > > Cheers, > > Will
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: > On 13 August 2013 17:02, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:12:06AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: > >> + cmp x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_WATCHPT_EL1 > >> + csel x0, x25, x22, eq //addr: x25->far_el1, x22->elr_el1 > >> + b.ge do_dbg > >> tbz x24, #0, el1_inv // EL1 only > > > > I'd rather you left the tbz as the first instruction in el1_dbg, then you > > can also lose the b.ge. > well, my understanding is that the tbz check is needed only for > Exception Class < 0x35 as per debug spec. If this is true, and if tbz > is first instruction, it fails for breakpoint (EC=0x3A) case and call > el1_inv to panic instead of routing to do_debug_exception. I am not > sure if we can optimize the code further to eliminate this one > branching as well. Well, you're actually only interested in 0x3c (BRK instruction executed in AArch64 state), so you should check for that explicitly. I guess it doesn't matter where you check bit #0 first or not, provided you have the branch logic correct. Will
On 20 August 2013 18:42, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: >> On 13 August 2013 17:02, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:12:06AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: >> >> + cmp x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_WATCHPT_EL1 >> >> + csel x0, x25, x22, eq //addr: x25->far_el1, x22->elr_el1 >> >> + b.ge do_dbg >> >> tbz x24, #0, el1_inv // EL1 only >> > >> > I'd rather you left the tbz as the first instruction in el1_dbg, then you >> > can also lose the b.ge. >> well, my understanding is that the tbz check is needed only for >> Exception Class < 0x35 as per debug spec. If this is true, and if tbz >> is first instruction, it fails for breakpoint (EC=0x3A) case and call >> el1_inv to panic instead of routing to do_debug_exception. I am not >> sure if we can optimize the code further to eliminate this one >> branching as well. > > Well, you're actually only interested in 0x3c (BRK instruction executed in > AArch64 state), so you should check for that explicitly. I guess it doesn't > matter where you check bit #0 first or not, provided you have the branch > logic correct. Agreed, then 0x3c is the only case where bit #0 check shall be ignored. I will rework this code accordingly, and as you have mentioned, I will add this patch along with the complete kprobes series later that will be using it. Thanks, Sandeepa > > Will
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h index a2232d0..aff3a76 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ #ifndef __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H #define __ASM_DEBUG_MONITORS_H +#include <linux/list.h> + #ifdef __KERNEL__ #define DBG_ESR_EVT(x) (((x) >> 27) & 0x7) @@ -62,6 +64,24 @@ struct task_struct; #define DBG_ARCH_ID_RESERVED 0 /* In case of ptrace ABI updates. */ +struct step_hook { + struct list_head node; + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); +}; + +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook); + +struct break_hook { + struct list_head node; + u32 esr_magic; + u32 esr_mask; + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn, unsigned long addr); +}; + +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook); + u8 debug_monitors_arch(void); void enable_debug_monitors(enum debug_el el); diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c index cbfacf7..2846327 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c @@ -188,6 +188,54 @@ static void clear_regs_spsr_ss(struct pt_regs *regs) regs->pstate = spsr; } +/* EL1 Single Step Handler hooks */ +static LIST_HEAD(step_hook); +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(step_lock); + +void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); + list_add(&hook->node, &step_hook); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); +} + +void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); + list_del(&hook->node); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); +} + +/* + * Call registered single step handers + * There is no Syndrome info to check for determining the handler. + * So we call all the registered handlers, until the right handler is + * found which returns zero. + */ +static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) +{ + struct step_hook *hook; + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); + list_for_each_entry(hook, &step_hook, node) { + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); + + if (hook->fn(regs, esr, addr) == 0) + return 0; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&step_lock, flags); + } + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&step_lock, flags); + + return 1; +} + static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs) { @@ -215,8 +263,11 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, */ user_rewind_single_step(current); } else { - /* TODO: route to KGDB */ - pr_warning("Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1\n"); + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ + if (call_step_hook(regs, addr, esr) == 0) + return 0; + + pr_warn("unexpected single step exception at %lx!\n", addr); /* * Re-enable stepping since we know that we will be * returning to regs. @@ -227,11 +278,56 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, return 0; } + +static LIST_HEAD(break_hook); +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(break_lock); + +void register_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); + list_add(&hook->node, &break_hook); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); +} + +void unregister_break_hook(struct break_hook *hook) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); + list_del(&hook->node); + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); +} + +static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) +{ + struct break_hook *hook; + unsigned long flags; + int (*fn)(struct pt_regs *regs, + unsigned int esr, unsigned long addr) = NULL; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&break_lock, flags); + list_for_each_entry(hook, &break_hook, node) + if ((esr & hook->esr_mask) == hook->esr_magic) + fn = hook->fn; + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&break_lock, flags); + + return fn ? fn(regs, esr, addr) : 1; +} + static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs) { siginfo_t info; + /* Call single step handlers for kgdb/kprobes */ + if (call_break_hook(regs, esr, addr) == 0) + return 0; + + pr_warn("unexpected brk exception at %lx, esr=0x%x\n", addr, esr); + if (!user_mode(regs)) return -EFAULT; @@ -291,7 +387,7 @@ static int __init debug_traps_init(void) hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_HWSS, single_step_handler, SIGTRAP, TRAP_HWBKPT, "single-step handler"); hook_debug_fault_code(DBG_ESR_EVT_BRK, brk_handler, SIGTRAP, - TRAP_BRKPT, "ptrace BRK handler"); + TRAP_BRKPT, "AArch64 BRK handler"); return 0; } arch_initcall(debug_traps_init); diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S index 6ad781b..e7350bd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S @@ -288,8 +288,12 @@ el1_dbg: /* * Debug exception handling */ + mrs x25, far_el1 //far for watchpt + cmp x24, #ESR_EL1_EC_WATCHPT_EL1 + csel x0, x25, x22, eq //addr: x25->far_el1, x22->elr_el1 + b.ge do_dbg tbz x24, #0, el1_inv // EL1 only - mrs x0, far_el1 +do_dbg: mov x2, sp // struct pt_regs bl do_debug_exception