On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 23:26:17 -0400 David Long <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: "David A. Long" <[email protected]> > > Cease using the arm32 arm_check_condition() function and replace it with > a local version for use in deprecated instruction support on arm64. Also > make the function table used by this available for future use by kprobes > and/or uprobes. > > This function is dervied from code written by Sandeepa Prabhu. > Basically looks good to me. I have some comments; > Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: David A. Long <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 3 ++ > arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 3 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 19 ++++++- > arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 98 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > index 9785d10..98e4edd 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h > @@ -406,6 +406,9 @@ u32 aarch64_extract_system_register(u32 insn); > u32 aarch32_insn_extract_reg_num(u32 insn, int offset); > u32 aarch32_insn_mcr_extract_opc2(u32 insn); > u32 aarch32_insn_mcr_extract_crm(u32 insn); > + > +typedef bool (pstate_check_t)(unsigned long); > +extern pstate_check_t * const opcode_condition_checks[16]; Are those condition checkers only for aarch32 opcode? or general for aarch64 too? If it is only for aarch32, we'd better add aarch32 prefix. > #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ > > #endif /* __ASM_INSN_H */ > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile > index 2173149..4653aca 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile > @@ -26,8 +26,7 @@ $(obj)/%.stub.o: $(obj)/%.o FORCE > $(call if_changed,objcopy) > > arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += sys32.o kuser32.o signal32.o > \ > - sys_compat.o entry32.o > \ > - ../../arm/kernel/opcodes.o > + sys_compat.o entry32.o > arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER) += ftrace.o entry-ftrace.o > arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_MODULES) += arm64ksyms.o module.o > arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS) += module-plts.o > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c > b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c > index c37202c..88b9165 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c > @@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ static int emulate_swpX(unsigned int address, unsigned > int *data, > return res; > } > > +#define ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND 0xf > + > +static unsigned int __kprobes arm32_check_condition(u32 opcode, u32 psr) Would you be OK for using arm32 instead of aarch32 prefix? > +{ > + u32 cc_bits = opcode >> 28; > + > + if (cc_bits != ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND) { > + if ((*opcode_condition_checks[cc_bits])(psr)) > + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_PASS; > + else > + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_FAIL; > + } > + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_UNCOND; > +} Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
