[PATCH v2 1/3] perf: Add perf_event_attr::bp_priv

[Tiezhu Yang]

On 07/08/2024 07:15 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 01:31:03PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/2024 06:34 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:39:08PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>>>> Add a member "bp_priv" at the end of the uapi struct perf_event_attr
>>>> to make a bridge between ptrace and hardware breakpoint.
>>>>
>>>> This is preparation for later patch on some archs such as ARM, ARM64
>>>> and LoongArch which have privilege level of breakpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu at loongson.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 3 +++
>>>>  kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c   | 1 +
>>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>>> index 3a64499b0f5d..f9f917e854e6 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>>>> @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ enum perf_event_read_format {
>>>>  #define PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER6	120	/* add: aux_sample_size */
>>>>  #define PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER7	128	/* add: sig_data */
>>>>  #define PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER8	136	/* add: config3 */
>>>> +#define PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER9	144	/* add: bp_priv */
>>>>
>>>>  /*
>>>>   * Hardware event_id to monitor via a performance monitoring event:
>>>> @@ -522,6 +523,8 @@ struct perf_event_attr {
>>>>  	__u64	sig_data;
>>>>
>>>>  	__u64	config3; /* extension of config2 */
>>>> +
>>>> +	__u8	bp_priv; /* privilege level of breakpoint */
>>>>  };
>>>
>>> Why are we extending the user ABI for this? Perf events already have the
>>> privilege encoded (indirectly) by the exclude_{user,kernel,hv} fields in
>>> 'struct perf_event_attr'.
>>
>> IMO, add bp_priv is to keep consistent with the other fields
>> bp_type, bp_addr and bp_len
>
> I disagree, as these are properties specific to hw_breakpoint. Privilege
> is not.
>
>> , the meaning of bp_priv field is
>> explicit and different with exclude_{user,kernel,hv} fields.
>
> How? You're changing the user ABI here, it needs to be properly justified.
>
>> Additionally, there is only 1 bit for exclude_{user,kernel,hv},
>> but bp_priv field has at least 2 bit according to the explanation
>> of Arm Reference Manual. At last, the initial aim is to remove
>> the check condition to assign the value of hw->ctrl.privilege.
>
> Why? What problem is hw->ctrl.privilege causing?
>
>> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/latest/
>>
>> 1. D23: AArch64 System Register Descriptions (Page 8562)
>>    D23.3.11 DBGWCR<n>_EL1, Debug Watchpoint Control Registers, n = 0 - 63
>>    PAC, bits [2:1]
>>    Privilege of access control. Determines the Exception level or levels at
>> which a Watchpoint debug
>>    event for watchpoint n is generated.
>>
>> 2. G8: AArch32 System Register Descriptions (Page 12334)
>>    G8.3.26 DBGWCR<n>, Debug Watchpoint Control Registers, n = 0 - 15
>>    PAC, bits [2:1]
>>    Privilege of access control. Determines the Exception level or levels at
>> which a Watchpoint debug
>>    event for watchpoint n is generated.
>
> You're just quoting bits of the Arm ARM. The architectural permission
> checking is much more complicated and takes into account all of the PAC,
> HMC, SSC and SSCE fields, but Linux doesn't need to care about most of
> that because it's only managing user, kernel and possibly hypervisor.
> These three can be expressed with the exclude_ options that we already
> have.
>
> So I really don't understand the rationale here.

Here is a reply to Peter Zijlstra, I hope that helps.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/da0c95e7-c676-e0c0-8b90-b1ea5fc7b72f@loongson.cn/

Thanks,
Tiezhu