[PATCH v4 13/16] ARM: Add an emulate flag to the kprobes/uprobes instruction decode functions

[David Long]

On 12/20/13 09:58, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 23:08 -0500, David Long wrote:
>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long at linaro.org>
>>
>> Add an emulate flag into the instruction interpreter, primarily for uprobes
>> support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.c      |  3 ++-
>>   arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.h      |  1 +
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes-arm.c   |  4 ++--
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes-arm.h   |  2 +-
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes-thumb.c |  8 ++++----
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes-thumb.h |  4 ++--
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes.c       | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>   arch/arm/kernel/probes.h       |  2 +-
>>   8 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.c
>> index 0d9d49b..04690f9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes.c
>> @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>>   	p->opcode = insn;
>>   	p->ainsn.insn = tmp_insn;
>>
>> -	switch ((*decode_insn)(insn, &p->ainsn, actions)) {
>> +	switch ((*decode_insn)(insn, &p->ainsn,
>> +			       true, actions)) {
>
> Any reason why the function args need splitting over two lines?

I undid the that change.

>>   	case INSN_REJECTED:	/* not supported */
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/probes.c
>> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ void __kprobes probes_emulate_none(probes_opcode_t opcode,
>>    */
>>   static probes_opcode_t __kprobes
>>   prepare_emulated_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>> -								bool thumb)
>> +			bool thumb)
>
> Seems like a spurious indentation change.

Fixed.

>>   {
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
>>   	if (thumb) {
>> @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ prepare_emulated_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>>    */
>>   static void  __kprobes
>>   set_emulated_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>> -								bool thumb)
>> +			bool thumb)
>
> Another spurious whitespace change.

Fixed.

>>   {
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
>>   	if (thumb) {
>> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ set_emulated_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>>    * non-zero value, the corresponding nibble in pinsn is validated and modified
>>    * according to the type.
>>    */
>> -static bool __kprobes decode_regs(probes_opcode_t *pinsn, u32 regs)
>> +static bool __kprobes decode_regs(probes_opcode_t *pinsn, u32 regs, bool modify)
>>   {
>>   	probes_opcode_t insn = *pinsn;
>>   	probes_opcode_t mask = 0xf; /* Start at least significant nibble */
>> @@ -317,9 +317,16 @@ static bool __kprobes decode_regs(probes_opcode_t *pinsn, u32 regs)
>>   		/* Replace value of nibble with new register number... */
>>   		insn &= ~mask;
>>   		insn |= new_bits & mask;
>> +		if (modify) {
>> +			/* Replace value of nibble with new register number */
>> +			insn &= ~mask;
>> +			insn |= new_bits & mask;
>> +		}
>
> Huh? As is, the above addition doesn't do anything because insn has
> already been modified. I guess you played with the idea that you needed
> to avoid changing insn (you don't) and then didn't undo the experiment
> quite right. :-)
>

The conditional modification of the instruction was part of Rabin's 
original work for uprobes, but I messed up the merge from an earlier 
working version of my patches.  My intention was/is to delete the old 
unconditional code.  Sounds like maybe you disagree though.  The intent 
is to only modify the instruction in the kprobes case.

>>   	}
>>
>> -	*pinsn = insn;
>> +	if (modify)
>> +		*pinsn = insn;
>> +
>>   	return true;
>>
>>   reject:
>> @@ -380,14 +387,15 @@ static const int decode_struct_sizes[NUM_DECODE_TYPES] = {
>>    */
>>   int __kprobes
>>   probes_decode_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>> -				const union decode_item *table, bool thumb,
>> -				const union decode_item *actions)
>> +		   const union decode_item *table, bool thumb,
>> +		   bool emulate, const union decode_item *actions)
>>   {
>>   	struct decode_header *h = (struct decode_header *)table;
>>   	struct decode_header *next;
>>   	bool matched = false;
>>
>> -	insn = prepare_emulated_insn(insn, asi, thumb);
>> +	if (emulate)
>> +		insn = prepare_emulated_insn(insn, asi, thumb);
>>
>>   	for (;; h = next) {
>>   		enum decode_type type = h->type_regs.bits & DECODE_TYPE_MASK;
>> @@ -402,7 +410,7 @@ probes_decode_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>>   		if (!matched && (insn & h->mask.bits) != h->value.bits)
>>   			continue;
>>
>> -		if (!decode_regs(&insn, regs))
>> +		if (!decode_regs(&insn, regs, emulate))
>>   			return INSN_REJECTED;
>>
>>   		switch (type) {
>> @@ -415,7 +423,8 @@ probes_decode_insn(probes_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi,
>>
>>   		case DECODE_TYPE_CUSTOM: {
>>   			struct decode_custom *d = (struct decode_custom *)h;
>> -			return actions[d->decoder.bits].decoder(insn, asi, h);
>> +			return actions[d->decoder.bits].decoder(insn,
>> +					asi, h);
>
> No need to split the above line, you haven't changed it and it doesn't
> exceed 80 characters anyway.

Fixed.

> [Rest of patch cut]
>

-dl