[PATCH v8 2/7] arm64: Add more test functions to insn.c

[David Long]

On 08/11/15 14:00, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:52:39AM +0100, David Long wrote:
>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long at linaro.org>
>>
>> Certain instructions are hard to execute correctly out-of-line (as in
>> kprobes).  Test functions are added to insn.[hc] to identify these.  The
>> instructions include any that use PC-relative addressing, change the PC,
>> or change interrupt masking. For efficiency and simplicity test
>> functions are also added for small collections of related instructions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> index 30e50eb..66bfb21 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> @@ -223,8 +223,13 @@ static __always_inline bool aarch64_insn_is_##abbr(u32 code) \
>>   static __always_inline u32 aarch64_insn_get_##abbr##_value(void) \
>>   { return (val); }
>>
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(adr_adrp,	0x1F000000, 0x10000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(prfm_lit,	0xFF000000, 0xD8000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(str_reg,	0x3FE0EC00, 0x38206800)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ldr_reg,	0x3FE0EC00, 0x38606800)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ldr_lit,	0xBF000000, 0x18000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ldrsw_lit,	0xFF000000, 0x98000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(exclusive,	0x3F000000, 0x08000000)
>
> Hmm, so this class also pulls in load-acquire and store-release, which
> we *should* be able to single-step, no? Maybe it's worth splitting this
> category up (or at least changing aarch64_insn_is_exclusive to be more
> permissive).

I was not confident that this was the case. After reading the relevant 
parts of the v8 ARM yet again I think I see your point.

>
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(stp_post,	0x7FC00000, 0x28800000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ldp_post,	0x7FC00000, 0x28C00000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(stp_pre,	0x7FC00000, 0x29800000)
>> @@ -264,19 +269,29 @@ __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ands,	0x7F200000, 0x6A000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(bics,	0x7F200000, 0x6A200000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(b,		0xFC000000, 0x14000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(bl,	0xFC000000, 0x94000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(b_bl,	0x7C000000, 0x14000000)
>
> Why do we need this when we already have checks for b and bl?

I was trying to avoid doing multiple checks for different variants of 
similar instructions.

>
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(cb,	0x7E000000, 0x34000000)
>
> Likewise for cbz and cbnz...
>
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(cbz,	0x7F000000, 0x34000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(cbnz,	0x7F000000, 0x35000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(tb,	0x7E000000, 0x36000000)
>
> ... there's a pattern here!
>

^^

>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(tbz,	0x7F000000, 0x36000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(tbnz,	0x7F000000, 0x37000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(b_bl_cb_tb, 0x5C000000, 0x14000000)
>
> I must be missing something :)

^^

>
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(bcond,	0xFF000010, 0x54000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(svc,	0xFFE0001F, 0xD4000001)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(hvc,	0xFFE0001F, 0xD4000002)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(smc,	0xFFE0001F, 0xD4000003)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(brk,	0xFFE0001F, 0xD4200000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(exception,	0xFF000000, 0xD4000000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(hint,	0xFFFFF01F, 0xD503201F)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(br,	0xFFFFFC1F, 0xD61F0000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(blr,	0xFFFFFC1F, 0xD63F0000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(br_blr,	0xFFDFFC1F, 0xD61F0000)
>>   __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(ret,	0xFFFFFC1F, 0xD65F0000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(msr_imm,	0xFFF8F01F, 0xD500401F)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(msr_reg,	0xFFF00000, 0xD5100000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(set_clr_daif, 0xFFFFF0DF, 0xD50340DF)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(rd_wr_daif, 0xFFDFFFE0, 0xD51B4220)
>
> I think I'd rather have separate decoders to decode the register field
> of an mrs/msr instruction than overload each encoding here.
>
> Anyway, on the whole this looks pretty good, I'd just prefer not to build
> compound instruction checks at the encoding level (even though it looks
> like you did a good job on the values).
>

OK, easy enough to just add to the if statements where these are getting 
used.  May be getting a little bloated looking there though.

-dl