Query: arm64: hwbreakpoint: single stepping in case of custom overflow_handler
Pratyush Anand
panand at redhat.com
Fri May 26 04:12:33 PDT 2017
Hi Will,
When we run test from samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.c, it triggers
continuous watchpoint exception handler.
Reproducer:
# insmod data_breakpoint.ko ksym=__sysrq_enabled
# cat /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
So, wanted to understand that why do we not allow single stepping in case
overflow_handler is a customized one and not from perf infrastructure?
Patch [1] allows to work with a custom overflow_handler, but I am not sure if
that could be an acceptable choice.
There are issues with samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.c, even when using
patch [1],because overflow_handler of test calls dump_stack(). I am not yet
sure,what happened here..my guess is that dump_stack() triggered a SW BRK
exception somewhere. Anyway,thats a secondary problem,I can look into if patch
[1] makes sense.
~Pratyush
[1]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
index 749f81779420..ea8ab0656dd0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
@@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int breakpoint_handler(unsigned long unused,
unsigned int esr,
perf_bp_event(bp, regs);
/* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
- if (is_default_overflow_handler(bp))
+ if (bp->overflow_handler)
step = 1;
unlock:
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ static int watchpoint_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned
int esr,
perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
/* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
- if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
+ if (wp->overflow_handler)
step = 1;
}
if (min_dist > 0 && min_dist != -1) {
@@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ static int watchpoint_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned
int esr,
perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
/* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
- if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
+ if (wp->overflow_handler)
step = 1;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list