[PATCH] arm64: Rework valid_user_regs

[Mark Rutland]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:04:21PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:01:27PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:43:24PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:23:29PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On 10 February 2016 at 12:31, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:58:53AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > >> I think we should err on the side of caution and nuke SS and IL for both
> > > > >> native and compat too, although that seems a odds with the PSR_s mask.
> > > > >> I wonder how relevant those PSR groups are in ARMv8...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok.
> > > > 
> > > > If you nuke SS does that have any side effects in the case
> > > > of (for instance) interactions between ptrace single step
> > > > and ptrace syscall tracing? (ie do we ever end up in a situation
> > > > where the ptracer can read a PSR for the debuggee which has
> > > > SS set? if so then it should be able to write back the PSR
> > > > it has just read without any bits being unset.)
> > > 
> > > I don't think so -- the signal dispatch logic "fast-forwards" the stepping
> > > state machine so that we step into the signal handler, therefore the SS
> > > bit should always be clear on entry afaict.
> > 
> > That handles entry, but what about exit?
> > 
> > Is there are a guarantee that we won't call user_enable_single_step() if
> > the return path is traced?
> 
> Why would that be a problem? I think I'm missing your point...

We would nuke the SS bit if the tracing happens after
user_enable_single_step, if the tracer fiddled with pstate at all. So
you wouldn't get the single stepping you expected.

Maybe I'm missing some reason this is prevented by construction.

Mark.