Re: [PATCH v12 7/7] ARM: kprobes: enable OPTPROBES for ARM 32
From: Wang Nan
Date: Thu Dec 04 2014 - 22:38:57 EST
On 2014/12/5 0:21, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 13:36 +0800, Wang Nan wrote:
>
[trim some text]
>
> I have retested this patch and on one of the arm test cases I get an
> undefined instruction exception in kprobe_arm_test_cases. When this
> happens PC points to the second nop below.
>
>
> 80028a38: e320f000 nop {0}
> 80028a3c: e11000b2 ldrh r0, [r0, -r2]
> 80028a40: e320f000 nop {0}
>
> As all three instructions will have probes on them during testing, and
> un-optimised probes are implemented by using an undefined instruction to
> act as a breakpoint, my first thought was that we have a race condition
> somewhere with adding, removing or optimizing probes. Though a reboot a
> retest failed in the same way on the same instruction, so I'm not 100%
> convinced about strictly timing related bugs.
>
Does the problem appear in your platform in each time? Currently I have only
QEMU machine for testing and haven't seen problem like this before. Could
you please provide a detail steps for me to reproduce it? Or do you just
enable kprobe test code when booting and this exception simply appear twice?
> Meanwhile, I have some review comments of the code below...
>
[trim some code]
>> + /*
>> + * Add more 4 byte for potential AEABI requirement. If probing is triggered
>> + * when SP % 8 == 4, we sub SP by another 4 bytes.
>> + */
>> + stack_protect += orig->ainsn.stack_space + 4;
>
> The above comment and code don't match up any more with the code in
> optprobe_template_entry, it should be '+ 7' here. Alternatively, change
> the code in optprobe_template_entry back to use 4 as I suggested.
>
>
Looks like we don't really need this 4 bytes. ASM code should operate SP correctly in
each case.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/