[PATCH 5/8] arm64: kprobes instruction simulation support

[David Long]

On 02/24/2016 04:05 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:56:52 -0500
> David Long <dave.long at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 02/19/2016 09:04 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On 18/02/16 23:48, David Long wrote:
>>>> From: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Kprobes needs simulation of instructions that cannot be stepped
>>>> from different memory location, e.g.: those instructions
>>>> that uses PC-relative addressing. In simulation, the behaviour
>>>> of the instruction is implemented using a copy of pt_regs.
>>>>
>>>> Following instruction catagories are simulated:
>>>>    - All branching instructions(conditional, register, and immediate)
>>>>    - Literal access instructions(load-literal, adr/adrp)
>>>>
>>>> Conditional execution is limited to branching instructions in
>>>> ARM v8. If conditions at PSTATE do not match the condition fields
>>>> of opcode, the instruction is effectively NOP. Kprobes considers
>>>> this case as 'miss'.
>>>>
>>>> This code also replaces the use of arch/arm/opcodes.c for
>>>> arm_check_condition().
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Will Cohen for assorted suggested changes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu at gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: William Cohen <wcohen at redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long at linaro.org>
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +asmlinkage unsigned int __kprobes arm_check_condition(u32 opcode, u32 psr)
>>>
>>> Why asmlinkage? This function is never called from assembly code on arm64.
>>>
>>
>> This comes from the 32-bit ARM code that tests the condition from
>> entry.S.  We include arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h in
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/opcodes.h so it gets declared there with
>> asmlinkage. I can remove the asmlinkage in the actual function
>> definition and it still compiles but I'm not sure that is kosher.
>
> asmlinkage is only meaningful if you're calling it from assembly code.
> As you seem to only call it from C code, having asmlinkage is both
> pointless and confusing.
>
>> Will Deacon was advocating getting rid of the include of the 32-bit header
>> file but it looked to me like this would mean a lot of duplicated
>> defines and the work would be mostly unrelated to kprobes.
>
> Arguably, arm_check_condition() (which only matters to 32bit code,
> hence userspace) is also completely unrelated to kprobes. I still think
> Will's point stands.
>

Yes, I would not argue about that cross-architecture include needing to 
be fixed.  Can I assume you agree that need not be a part of this 
kprobes patch though, nor a prerequisite patch for it?

>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u32 cc_bits  = opcode >> 28;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cc_bits != ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND) {
>>>> +		if ((*opcode_condition_checks[cc_bits])(psr))
>>>> +			return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_PASS;
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_FAIL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_UNCOND;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arm_check_condition);
>>>
>>> Why do we need this to be exported at all? Also, it'd be better located
>>> together with the deprecated instruction handling, possibly in a
>>> separate patch (nothing uses this function in this patch).
>>>
>>
>> I've made the function static and moved it to armv8_deprecated.  I have
>> to leave the static functions that test the individual conditions and
>> the global array of pointers to them outside of the conditionally
>> compiled armv8_deprecated.c as they have to always be present for
>> kprobes to simulate a conditional branch.
>
> I think that's fine.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>