From: panand@redhat.com (Pratyush Anand) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:15:34 +0530 Subject: [RFC 8/8] ARM64: Add uprobe support In-Reply-To: <54B355FA.60702@redhat.com> References: <0694af6935f9c6873ef8d25ad51630a40a74a116.1420038188.git.panand@redhat.com> <20150109175936.GB13161@redhat.com> <54B355FA.60702@redhat.com> Message-ID: <54B36D8E.4030001@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Oleg, How can I generate a scenario to test: a) arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped b) arch_uprobe_abort_xol ~Pratyush On Monday 12 January 2015 10:34 AM, Pratyush Anand wrote: > > > On Friday 09 January 2015 11:29 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> On 12/31, Pratyush Anand wrote: >>> >>> +int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct >>> mm_struct *mm, >>> + unsigned long addr) >>> +{ >>> + probe_opcode_t insn; >>> + >>> + insn = *(probe_opcode_t *)(&auprobe->insn[0]); >>> + >>> + switch (arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, &auprobe->ainsn)) { >>> + case INSN_REJECTED: >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + case INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT: >>> + auprobe->simulate = true; >>> + if (auprobe->ainsn.prepare) >>> + auprobe->ainsn.prepare(insn, &auprobe->ainsn); >>> + break; >>> + >>> + case INSN_GOOD: >>> + default: >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >> >> forgot to mention... shouldn't it also check IS_ALIGNED(addr, >> AARCH64_INSN_SIZE) ? >> >> I do not know if unaligned insn address is valid on arm64 or not, but >> please > > AARCH64 instructions are always of fixed lenght ie 4 bytes. I do not see > possibility of addr being unaligned. Please let me know, if I am missing > something. > >> note that at least it should not cross the page boundary, set_swbp() >> needs to >> write AARCH64_INSN_SIZE == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN bytes and it assumes that >> this >> should fit the single page. > > So, again I do not see the possibility of crossing of page boundary for > any instruction address. > > ~Pratyush