Re: [PATCH 4/9] arm: Split breakpoint validation into "check" and "commit"

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:32:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:13:23PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Frederick,
> > 
> > On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:50PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > The breakpoint code mixes up attribute check and commit into a single
> > > code entity. Therefore the validation may return an error due to
> > > incorrect atributes while still leaving halfway modified architecture
> > > breakpoint struct.
> > > 
> > > Prepare fox fixing this misdesign and separate both logics.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate on what the problem is? I would have expected that
> > when arch_build_bp_info() returns an error code, we wouldn't
> > subsequently use the arch_hw_breakpoint information. Where does that
> > happen?
> 
> From digging, I now see that this is a problem when
> modify_user_hw_breakpoint() is called on an existing breakpoint. It
> would be nice to mention that in the commit message.

Right, I'll improve the changelog.

> 
> > I also see that the check and commit hooks have to duplicate a
> > reasonable amount of logic, e.g. the switch on bp->attr.type. Can we
> > instead refactor the existing arch_build_bp_info() hooks to use a
> > temporary arch_hw_breakpoint, and then struct assign it after all the
> > error cases, > e.g.
> > 
> > static int arch_build_bp_info(struct perf_event *bp)
> > {
> > 	struct arch_hw_breakpoint hbp;
> > 	
> > 	if (some_condition(bp))
> > 		hbp->field = 0xf00;
> > 
> > 	switch (bp->attr.type) {
> > 	case FOO:
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	case BAR:
> > 		hbp->other_field = 7;
> > 		break;
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	if (failure_case(foo))
> > 		return err;
> > 	
> > 	*counter_arch_bp(bp) = hbp;
> > }
> > 
> > ... or is that also problematic?
> 
> IIUC, this *would* work, but it is a little opaque.
> 
> Perhaps we could explicitly pass the temporary arch_hw_breakpoint in,
> and have the core code struct-assign it after checking for errors?

Exactly, that looks like a good idea, I'm trying that.

Thanks.