[PATCH v5 3/6] target-arm: kvm - implement software breakpoints

[Peter Maydell]

On 29 May 2015 at 16:19, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee at linaro.org> wrote:
> These don't involve messing around with debug registers, just setting
> the breakpoint instruction in memory. GDB will not use this mechanism if
> it can't access the memory to write the breakpoint.
>
> All the kernel has to do is ensure the hypervisor traps the breakpoint
> exceptions and returns to userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee at linaro.org>
>
> --
> v2
>   - handle debug exit with new hsr exception info
>   - add verbosity to UNIMP message
> v3
>   - sync with kvm_cpu_synchronize_state() before checking PC.
>   - use internals.h defines
>   - use env->pc
>   - use proper format types
> ---
>  target-arm/kvm.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/kvm.c b/target-arm/kvm.c
> index fdd9ba3..c3bad6f 100644
> --- a/target-arm/kvm.c
> +++ b/target-arm/kvm.c
> @@ -510,9 +510,60 @@ void kvm_arch_post_run(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_run *run)
>  {
>  }
>
> +/* See v8 ARM ARM D7.2.27 ESR_ELx, Exception Syndrome Register
> + *
> + * To minimise translating between kernel and user-space the kernel
> + * ABI just provides user-space with the full exception syndrome
> + * register value to be decoded in QEMU.
> + */
> +
> +static int kvm_handle_debug(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_run *run)
> +{
> +    struct kvm_debug_exit_arch *arch_info = &run->debug.arch;
> +    int hsr_ec = arch_info->hsr >> ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT;
> +    ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(cs);
> +    CPUARMState *env = &cpu->env;
> +
> +    /* Ensure PC is synchronised */
> +    kvm_cpu_synchronize_state(cs);
> +
> +    switch (hsr_ec) {
> +    case EC_AA64_BKPT:
> +        if (kvm_find_sw_breakpoint(cs, env->pc)) {
> +            return true;
> +        }
> +        break;
> +    default:
> +        error_report("%s: unhandled debug exit (%"PRIx32", %"PRIx64")\n",
> +                     __func__, arch_info->hsr, env->pc);
> +    }
> +
> +    /* If we don't handle this it could be it really is for the
> +       guest to handle */
> +    qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP,
> +                  "%s: re-injecting exception not yet implemented"
> +                  " (0x%"PRIx32", %"PRIx64")\n",
> +                  __func__, hsr_ec, env->pc);
> +
> +    return false;
> +}
> +
>  int kvm_arch_handle_exit(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_run *run)
>  {
> -    return 0;
> +    int ret = 0;
> +
> +    switch (run->exit_reason) {
> +    case KVM_EXIT_DEBUG:
> +        if (kvm_handle_debug(cs, run)) {
> +            ret = EXCP_DEBUG;
> +        } /* otherwise return to guest */
> +        break;
> +    default:
> +        qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: un-handled exit reason %d\n",
> +                      __func__, run->exit_reason);
> +        break;
> +    }
> +    return ret;
>  }
>
>  bool kvm_arch_stop_on_emulation_error(CPUState *cs)
> @@ -537,14 +588,33 @@ int kvm_arch_on_sigbus(int code, void *addr)
>
>  void kvm_arch_update_guest_debug(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_guest_debug *dbg)
>  {
> -    qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: not implemented\n", __func__);
> +    if (kvm_sw_breakpoints_active(cs)) {
> +        dbg->control |= KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE | KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP;
> +    }
>  }
>
> -int kvm_arch_insert_sw_breakpoint(CPUState *cs,
> -                                  struct kvm_sw_breakpoint *bp)
> +/* C6.6.29 BRK instruction */
> +int kvm_arch_insert_sw_breakpoint(CPUState *cs, struct kvm_sw_breakpoint *bp)
>  {
> -    qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: not implemented\n", __func__);
> -    return -EINVAL;
> +    static const uint32_t brk = 0xd4200000;

#define, please, since you're using it here and in the remove fn.

> +
> +    if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(cs, bp->pc, (uint8_t *)&bp->saved_insn, 4, 0) ||
> +        cpu_memory_rw_debug(cs, bp->pc, (uint8_t *)&brk, 4, 1)) {
> +        return -EINVAL;
> +    }
> +    return 0;
> +}

Shouldn't we be testing the "does the kernel implement debug"
flag before we allow gdb to write in bp insns or mess with
dbg->control ?

-- PMM