On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 10:36 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Andreas Schwab < > sch...@linux-m68k.org > > writes: > > > On Jun 18 2019, Radu Rendec < > > radu.ren...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Since you already have a working setup, it would be nice if you could > > > add a printk to arch_ptrace() to print the address and confirm what I > > > believe happens (by reading the gdb source code). > > > > A ppc32 ptrace syscall goes through compat_arch_ptrace.
Right. I completely overlooked that part. > Ah right, and that (in ptrace32.c) contains code that will work: > > > /* > * the user space code considers the floating point > * to be an array of unsigned int (32 bits) - the > * index passed in is based on this assumption. > */ > tmp = ((unsigned int *)child->thread.fp_state.fpr) > [FPRINDEX(index)]; > > FPRINDEX is defined above to deal with the various manipulations you > need to do. Correct. Basically it does the same that I did in my patch: it divides the index again by 2 (it's already divided by 4 in compat_arch_ptrace() so it ends up divided by 8), then takes the least significant bit and adds it to the index. I take bit 2 of the original address, which is the same thing (because in FPRHALF() the address is already divided by 4). So we have this in ptrace32.c: #define FPRNUMBER(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) >> 1) #define FPRHALF(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) & 1) #define FPRINDEX(i) TS_FPRWIDTH * FPRNUMBER(i) * 2 + FPRHALF(i) index = (unsigned long) addr >> 2; (unsigned int *)child->thread.fp_state.fpr)[FPRINDEX(index)] And we have this in my patch: fpidx = (addr - PT_FPR0 * sizeof(long)) / 8; (void *)&child->thread.TS_FPR(fpidx) + (addr & 4) > Radu: I think we want to copy that working code back into ptrace.c. I'm not sure that would work. There's a subtle difference: the code in ptrace32.c is always compiled on a 64-bit kernel and the user space calling it is always 32-bit; on the other hand, the code in ptrace.c can be compiled on either a 64-bit kernel or a 32-bit kernel and the user space calling it always has the same "bitness" as the kernel. One difference is the size of the CPU registers. On 64-bit they are 8 byte long and user space knows that and generates 8-byte aligned addresses. So you have to divide the address by 8 to calculate the CPU register index correctly, which compat_arch_ptrace() currently doesn't. Another difference is that on 64-bit `long` is 8 bytes, so user space can read a whole FPU register in a single ptrace call. Now that we are all aware of compat_arch_ptrace() (which handles the special case of a 32-bit process running on a 64-bit kernel) I would say the patch is correct and does the right thing for both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels and processes. > The challenge will be unpicking the awful mess of ifdefs in ptrace.c > and making it somewhat more comprehensible. I'm not sure what ifdefs you're thinking about. The only that are used inside arch_ptrace() are PT_FPR0, PT_FPSCR and TS_FPR, which seem to be correct. But perhaps it would be useful to change my patch and add a comment just before arch_ptrace() that explains how the math is done and that the code must work on both 32-bit and 64-bit, the user space address assumptions, etc. By the way, I'm not sure the code in compat_arch_ptrace() handles PT_FPSCR correctly. It might (just because fpscr is right next to fpr[] in memory - and that's a hack), but I can't figure out if it accesses the right half. Radu