lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][V3] arm64: perf: Get the wrong PC value in REGS_ABI_32 mode
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 06:19:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> So, I think we should take this patch (which puts the PC where you'd expect
> to find it for compat tasks) and then we could consider removing the current
> lr/sp fudging as a separate patch, which we could revert if it causes a
> problem. However, I'm not sure I want to open that up.

Patch below...

Will

--->8

From 7452148b87ed8c82826474366dbe536fd960d3a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@windriver.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 10:52:07 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Report the PC value in REGS_ABI_32 mode

A 32-bit perf querying the registers of a compat task using REGS_ABI_32
will receive zeroes from w15, when it expects to find the PC.

Return the PC value for register dwarf register 15 when returning register
values for a compat task to perf.

Signed-off-by: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@windriver.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1589165527-188401-1-git-send-email-jiping.ma2@windriver.com
[will: Shuffled code and added a comment]
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
index 0bbac612146e..952b26a05d0f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
@@ -15,15 +15,25 @@ u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
return 0;

/*
- * Compat (i.e. 32 bit) mode:
- * - PC has been set in the pt_regs struct in kernel_entry,
- * - Handle SP and LR here.
+ * Our handling of compat tasks (PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32) is weird. For
+ * a 32-bit perf inspecting a 32-bit task, then it will look at the
+ * first 16 registers. These correspond directly to the registers saved
+ * in our pt_regs structure, with the exception of the PC, so we copy
+ * that down (x15 corresponds to SP_hyp in the architecture). So far, so
+ * good. The oddity arises when a 64-bit perf looks at a 32-bit task and
+ * asks for registers beyond PERF_REG_ARM_MAX. In this case, we return
+ * SP_usr, LR_usr and PC in the positions where the AArch64 registers
+ * would normally live. The initial idea was to allow a 64-bit unwinder
+ * to unwinder a 32-bit task and, although it's not clear how well that
+ * works in practice, we're kind of stuck with this interface now.
*/
if (compat_user_mode(regs)) {
if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
return regs->compat_sp;
if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_LR)
return regs->compat_lr;
+ if (idx == 15)
+ return regs->pc;
}

if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
--
2.27.0.111.gc72c7da667-goog
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-23 19:45    [W:0.147 / U:2.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site