lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH][V3] arm64: perf: Get the wrong PC value in REGS_ABI_32 mode
From
Date


On 05/27/2020 11:19 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:33:00AM +0800, Jiping Ma wrote:
>>
>> On 05/26/2020 06:26 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:52:07AM +0800, Jiping Ma wrote:
>>>> Modified the patch subject and the change description.
>>>>
>>>> PC value is get from regs[15] in REGS_ABI_32 mode, but correct PC
>>>> is regs->pc(regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_PC]) in arm64 kernel, which caused
>>>> that perf can not parser the backtrace of app with dwarf mode in the
>>>> 32bit system and 64bit kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@windriver.com>
>>> Thanks for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c | 4 ++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> index 0bbac61..0ef2880 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>>> if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_PC)
>>>> return regs->pc;
>>>> + if (perf_reg_abi(current) == PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32
>>>> + && idx == 15)
>>>> + return regs->pc;
>>> I think there are some more issues here, and we may need a more
>>> substantial rework. For a compat thread, we always expose
>>> PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32 via per_reg_abi(), but for some reason
>>> perf_reg_value() also munges the compat SP/LR into their ARM64
>>> equivalents, which don't exist in the 32-bit sample ABI. We also don't
>>> zero the regs that don't exist in 32-bit (including the aliasing PC).
>>>
>>> I reckon what we should do is have seperate functions for the two ABIs,
>>> to ensure we don't conflate them, e.g.
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value_abi32(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> if ((u32)idx > PERF_REG_ARM32_PC)
>>> return 0;
>>> if (idx == PERF_REG_ARM32_PC)
>>> return regs->pc;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Compat SP and LR already in-place
>>> */
>>> return regs->regs[idx];
>>> }
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value_abi64(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> if ((u32)idx > PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX)
>>> return 0;
>>> if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
>>> return regs->sp;
>>> if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_PC)
>>> return regs->pc;
>>>
>>> reutrn regs->regs[idx];
>>> }
>>>
>>> u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
>>> {
>>> if (compat_user_mode(regs))
>>> return perf_reg_value_abi32(regs, idx);
>>> else
>>> return perf_reg_value_abi64(regs, idx);
>>> }
>> This modification can not fix our issue,  we need
>> perf_reg_abi(current) == PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32 to judge if it is 32-bit
>> task or not,
>> then return the correct PC value.
> I must be missing something here.
>
> The core code perf_reg_abi(task) is called with the task being sampled,
> and the regs are from the task being sampled. For a userspace sample for
> a compat task, compat_user_mode(regs) should be equivalent to the
> is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(task)) check.
>
> What am I missing?
This issue caused by PC value is not correct. regs are sampled in
function perf_output_sample_regs, that call perf_reg_value(regs, bit) to
get PC value.
PC value is regs[15] in perf_reg_value() function. it should be regs[32].

perf_output_sample_regs(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
                        struct pt_regs *regs, u64 mask)
{
        int bit;
        DECLARE_BITMAP(_mask, 64);

        bitmap_from_u64(_mask, mask);
        for_each_set_bit(bit, _mask, sizeof(mask) * BITS_PER_BYTE) {
                u64 val;

                val = perf_reg_value(regs, bit);
                perf_output_put(handle, val);
        }
}

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 03:07    [W:0.155 / U:1.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site