[PATCH v3] ARM: kprobes: Add test cases for stack consuming instructions
Wang Nan
wangnan0 at huawei.com
Wed Dec 10 05:18:53 PST 2014
On 2014/12/10 20:34, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 16:23 +0800, Wang Nan wrote:
>> Hi Tixy,
>>
>> I experienced another FAIL during test:
>>
>> [11567.220477] Miscellaneous instructions
>> [11567.265397] ---------------------------------------------------------
>> [11567.342626] mrs r0, cpsr @ e10f0000
>> [11568.612656] FAIL: registers differ
>> [11568.653414] FAIL: Test mrs r0, cpsr
>> [11568.695210] FAIL: Scenario 5
>> [11568.729709] initial_regs:
>> [11568.761083] r0 21522152 | r1 21522052 | r2 21522352 | r3 21522252
>> [11568.838301] r4 21522552 | r5 21522452 | r6 21522752 | r7 21522652
>> [11568.915526] r8 21522952 | r9 21522852 | r10 21522b52 | r11 21522a52
>> [11568.992748] r12 21522d52 | sp ed343cf0 | lr 21522f52 | pc bf11f590
>> [11569.069969] cpsr 58050013
>> [11569.101336] expected_regs:
>> [11569.133750] r0 58050013 | r1 21522052 | r2 21522352 | r3 21522252
>> [11569.210975] r4 21522552 | r5 21522452 | r6 21522752 | r7 21522652
>> [11569.288197] r8 21522952 | r9 21522852 | r10 21522b52 | r11 21522a52
>> [11569.365417] r12 21522d52 | sp ed343cf0 | lr 21522f52 | pc bf11f594
>> [11569.442634] cpsr 58050013
>> [11569.474010] result_regs:
>> [11569.504337] r0 58050113 | r1 21522052 | r2 21522352 | r3 21522252 <--- see R0 in this line
>> [11569.581556] r4 21522552 | r5 21522452 | r6 21522752 | r7 21522652
>> [11569.658776] r8 21522952 | r9 21522852 | r10 21522b52 | r11 21522a52
>> [11569.736000] r12 21522d52 | sp ed343cf0 | lr 21522f52 | pc bf11f594
>> [11569.813222] cpsr 58050013
>> [11569.844593] mrspl r7, cpsr @ 510f7000
>> [11571.842652] mrs r14, cpsr @ e10fe000
>>
>> The failure is raise when testing in "mrs r0, cpsr". The added bit is PSR_A_BIT, which
>> should be ignored.
>>
>> So looks like this is also a problem in your test framework. If you don't have
>> enough time, you can give me some hints to deal with it.
>
> The problem is that the A bit can change randomly when interrupts or
> reschedules happen (I'm not sure it should, and it may be a bug). For
> the purposes of this test code, we can't disable interrupts and
> scheduling around all the iterations of a test case, because inserting
> and removing probes requires them to be enabled. So we need a method of
> ignoring bits in cpsr, how about the following patch...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jon Medhurst <tixy at linaro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: kprobes: Fix unreliable MRS instruction tests
>
> For the instruction 'mrs Rn, cpsr' the resulting value of Rn can vary due to
> external factors we can't control. So get the test code to mask out these
> indeterminate bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy at linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c | 6 +++---
> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c | 4 ++--
> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
> index 9b3b1b4..e72b07e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c
> @@ -204,9 +204,9 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
> #endif
> TEST_GROUP("Miscellaneous instructions")
>
> - TEST("mrs r0, cpsr")
> - TEST("mrspl r7, cpsr")
> - TEST("mrs r14, cpsr")
> + TEST_RMASKED("mrs r",0,~PSR_IGNORE_BITS,", cpsr")
> + TEST_RMASKED("mrspl r",7,~PSR_IGNORE_BITS,", cpsr")
> + TEST_RMASKED("mrs r",14,~PSR_IGNORE_BITS,", cpsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe10ff000) " @ mrs r15, cpsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED("mrs r0, spsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED("mrs lr, spsr")
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.c
> index 7c5ddd5..e495127 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.c
> @@ -1056,15 +1056,6 @@ static int test_case_run_count;
> static bool test_case_is_thumb;
> static int test_instance;
>
> -/*
> - * We ignore the state of the imprecise abort disable flag (CPSR.A) because this
> - * can change randomly as the kernel doesn't take care to preserve or initialise
> - * this across context switches. Also, with Security Extentions, the flag may
> - * not be under control of the kernel; for this reason we ignore the state of
> - * the FIQ disable flag CPSR.F as well.
> - */
> -#define PSR_IGNORE_BITS (PSR_A_BIT | PSR_F_BIT)
> -
> static unsigned long test_check_cc(int cc, unsigned long cpsr)
> {
> int ret = arm_check_condition(cc << 28, cpsr);
> @@ -1271,11 +1262,21 @@ test_case_pre_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
> static int __kprobes
> test_after_pre_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> + struct test_arg *args;
> +
> if (container_of(p, struct test_probe, kprobe)->hit == test_instance)
> return 0; /* Already run for this test instance */
>
> result_regs = *regs;
> +
> + /* Mask out results which are indeterminate */
> result_regs.ARM_cpsr &= ~PSR_IGNORE_BITS;
> + for (args = current_args; args[0].type != ARG_TYPE_END; ++args)
> + if (args[0].type == ARG_TYPE_REG_MASKED) {
> + struct test_arg_regptr *arg =
> + (struct test_arg_regptr *)args;
> + result_regs.uregs[arg->reg] &= arg->val;
> + }
>
> /* Undo any changes done to SP by the test case */
> regs->ARM_sp = (unsigned long)current_stack;
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.h b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.h
> index 9991754..32f7aa7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-core.h
> @@ -45,10 +45,11 @@ extern int kprobe_test_cc_position;
> *
> */
>
> -#define ARG_TYPE_END 0
> -#define ARG_TYPE_REG 1
> -#define ARG_TYPE_PTR 2
> -#define ARG_TYPE_MEM 3
> +#define ARG_TYPE_END 0
> +#define ARG_TYPE_REG 1
> +#define ARG_TYPE_PTR 2
> +#define ARG_TYPE_MEM 3
> +#define ARG_TYPE_REG_MASKED 4
>
> #define ARG_FLAG_UNSUPPORTED 0x01
> #define ARG_FLAG_SUPPORTED 0x02
> @@ -61,7 +62,7 @@ struct test_arg {
> };
>
> struct test_arg_regptr {
> - u8 type; /* ARG_TYPE_REG or ARG_TYPE_PTR */
> + u8 type; /* ARG_TYPE_REG or ARG_TYPE_PTR or ARG_TYPE_REG_MASKED */
> u8 reg;
> u8 _padding[2];
> u32 val;
> @@ -138,6 +139,12 @@ struct test_arg_end {
> ".short 0 \n\t" \
> ".word "#val" \n\t"
>
> +#define TEST_ARG_REG_MASKED(reg, val) \
> + ".byte "__stringify(ARG_TYPE_REG_MASKED)" \n\t" \
> + ".byte "#reg" \n\t" \
> + ".short 0 \n\t" \
> + ".word "#val" \n\t"
> +
> #define TEST_ARG_END(flags) \
> ".byte "__stringify(ARG_TYPE_END)" \n\t" \
> ".byte "TEST_ISA flags" \n\t" \
> @@ -395,6 +402,22 @@ struct test_arg_end {
> " "codex" \n\t" \
> TESTCASE_END
>
> +#define TEST_RMASKED(code1, reg, mask, code2) \
> + TESTCASE_START(code1 #reg code2) \
> + TEST_ARG_REG_MASKED(reg, mask) \
> + TEST_ARG_END("") \
> + TEST_INSTRUCTION(code1 #reg code2) \
> + TESTCASE_END
> +
> +/*
> + * We ignore the state of the imprecise abort disable flag (CPSR.A) because this
> + * can change randomly as the kernel doesn't take care to preserve or initialise
> + * this across context switches. Also, with Security Extensions, the flag may
> + * not be under control of the kernel; for this reason we ignore the state of
> + * the FIQ disable flag CPSR.F as well.
> + */
> +#define PSR_IGNORE_BITS (PSR_A_BIT | PSR_F_BIT)
> +
>
> /*
> * Macros for defining space directives spread over multiple lines.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c
> index e8cf193..b683b45 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c
> @@ -778,8 +778,8 @@ CONDITION_INSTRUCTIONS(22,
>
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED("subs pc, lr, #4")
>
> - TEST("mrs r0, cpsr")
> - TEST("mrs r14, cpsr")
> + TEST_RMASKED("mrs r",0,~PSR_IGNORE_BITS,", cpsr")
> + TEST_RMASKED("mrs r",14,~PSR_IGNORE_BITS,", cpsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_thumb32(0xf3ef8d00) " @ mrs sp, spsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_thumb32(0xf3ef8f00) " @ mrs pc, spsr")
> TEST_UNSUPPORTED("mrs r0, spsr")
>
Well, I'm just working on a patch which introducing a TEST_INTOFF and disable interrupts
for "MRS" testcase. Do you think it is inappropriate? I'll use your patch test for a night
in my hardware, and will let you know the result tomorrow.
Thank you!
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list