Hi Will,
Sorry for responding to this after long-time, I missed this review
during Linaro connect travels.
On 25 October 2013 20:52, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Sandeepa,
>
> This is getting there, thanks for persevering with it. I still have a few
> minor comments though.
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:46PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> AArch64 Single Steping and Breakpoint debug exceptions will be
>> used by multiple debug framworks like kprobes & kgdb.
>>
>> This patch implements the hooks for those frameworks to register
>> their own handlers for handling breakpoint and single step events.
>>
>> Reworked the debug exception handler in entry.S: do_dbg to route
>> software breakpoint (BRK64) exception to do_debug_exception()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsax...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 21 ++++++++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 86
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 2 +
>> 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -215,7 +257,10 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr,
>> unsigned int esr,
>> */
>> user_rewind_single_step(current);
>> } else {
>> - /* TODO: route to KGDB */
>> + /* call registered single step handlers */
>
> Don't bother with this comment (it's crystal clear from the code).
OK, I will remove this unnecessary print.
>
>> + if (call_step_hook(regs, esr) == DBG_HOOK_HANDLED)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> pr_warning("Unexpected kernel single-step exception at EL1\n");
>> /*
>> * Re-enable stepping since we know that we will be
>> @@ -227,11 +272,50 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr,
>> unsigned int esr,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +
>> +static LIST_HEAD(break_hook);
>> +DEFINE_RWLOCK(break_hook_lock);
>
> This guy can be a plain old spinlock. That way, the readers have less
> overhead but things still work because we only call a single hook function.
well, kprobes need to support recursive breakpoints (i.e. breakpoint
handler executing BRK once again)
so I converted this lock to rw_lock. I should put this info in commit
description to be more clearer.
Let me know if you find any issue with re-cursing in breakpoint exception?
Thanks,
Sandeepa
>
> Will
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
