On 19 November 2014 20:25, David Long wrote:
>> I was thinking of the magic hex numbers in the kprobes decode tables,
>> which
>> seem to correspond directly to the instruction classes described in insn.c
>>
>> Keeping the actual emulation code separate makes sense.
>>
>> Will
>
>
> Of course that
On 18 November 2014 20:26, Will Deacon wrote:
> One thing I noticed looking through this patch is that we're effectively
> reinventing a bunch of the instruction decoding logic that we already have
> in the kernel (introduced since Sandeepa last sent his patch).
>
> Could you take a look at inclu
On 24 April 2014 02:02, Tanmay Inamdar wrote:
> Hello Sandeepa,
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Sandeepa Prabhu
> wrote:
>> On 22 April 2014 15:41, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:58:28AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>> On
On 22 April 2014 15:41, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:58:28AM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 14 March 2014 21:04, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch adds support for PCI to AArch64. It is based on my v7 patch
>> >
On 14 March 2014 21:04, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch adds support for PCI to AArch64. It is based on my v7 patch
> that adds support for creating generic host bridge structure from
> device tree. With that in place, I was able to boot a platform that
> has PCIe host bridge support and u
>> I am not sure if this question is related, uprobes or ftrace code does
>> not define __kprobes, so is it safe to place kprobe on uprobes or
>> ftrace code?
>
> Yes, it is "safe" in qualitative meaning. But for ftrace code, it could
> give a performance impact by miss-hitting. Since uprobe is in
> OK, I think the kprobe is like a strong medicine, not a toy,
> since it can intercept most of the kernel functions which
> may process a sensitive user private data. Thus even if we
> fix all bugs and make it safe, I don't think we can open
> it for all users (of course, there should be a knob to
On 4 December 2013 13:09, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/12/04 11:54), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 4 December 2013 06:58, Masami Hiramatsu
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Here is the version 4 of NOKPORBE_SYMBOL series.
>>>
>>> In this version, I re
ry.S: do_dbg to route
software breakpoint (BRK64) exception to do_debug_exception()
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena
Acked-by: Will Deacon
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 21
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
mmit ID: dc1ccc48159d63eca5089e507c82c7d22ef60839 (Linux 3.13-rc2)
- CCing Jason Wessel, since arm64 kgdb patchset is dependant on this.
Sandeepa Prabhu (1):
arm64: support single-step and breakpoint handler hooks
arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 21
arch/arm64/kerne
On 4 December 2013 06:58, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> Hi,
> Here is the version 4 of NOKPORBE_SYMBOL series.
>
> In this version, I removed the cleanup patches and
> add bugfixes I've found, since those bugs will be
> critical.
> Rest of the cleanup and visible blacklists will be
> proposed later in
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
On 18 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
>>> which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
>>> Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
>>> with othe
>> This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
>> which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
>> Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
>> with othe functions like do_fork, vfs_read etc but no hit.
>
> You'd need to place something for exec i
On 15 November 2013 22:07, Will Deacon wrote:
>> well, kprobes does not step from kernel address, but it prepares a
>> allocated memory(executable), copies the instruction and update the
>> single step address (ELR) to enable stepping while ERET.
>> So, don't we need NOP at next location after t
On 15 November 2013 22:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:04:04AM +0000, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> I have applied this patchset on aarch64 upstream branch,cross-compiled
>> for arm64 and try running some tests for hardware breakpoints.
On 14 November 2013 16:45, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Sandeepa,
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Sandeepa Prabhu
> wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> I have applied this patchset on aarch64 upstream branch,cross-compiled
>> for arm64 and try running some tests for
Hi Jean,
I have applied this patchset on aarch64 upstream branch,cross-compiled
for arm64 and try running some tests for hardware breakpoints.
I cross-compiled perf using linaro toolchain
"gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.7-2013.04-20130415_linux" as
$ cd tools/perf/
$ make LDFLAGS=-static ARCH=a
On 13 November 2013 20:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +0000, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> >>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
>> >>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
>>
On 13 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
>>>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
>>>>
>>>>> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami
On 12 November 2013 15:47, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
>> wrote:
>>> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoi
On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>>>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>>>>> So if arm64
On 11 November 2013 16:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:35:37AM +0000, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 8 November 2013 22:26, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h
>> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h
>&
>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>>> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
>>> work with it.
>>
>> Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
>> A
On 11 November 2013 13:23, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 01:29 PM, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>
>> On 8 November 2013 22:34, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +static inline long regs_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> +{
>>>&g
On 8 November 2013 22:33, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:48PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> Add support for AArch64 instruction simulation in kprobes.
>>
>> Kprobes need simulation of instructions that cannot be stepped
>> right-away from dif
On 9 November 2013 14:40, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/09 1:56), Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Sandeepa,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
>>> fo
On 8 November 2013 22:26, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Sandeepa,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
>> for ARM64.
>
> I think this series will conflict quite heavily
On 8 November 2013 22:34, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:49PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> AArch64 ISA does not instructions to pop PC register value
>> from stack(like ARM v7 has ldmia {...,pc}) without using
>> one of the general purpose registe
On 25 October 2013 20:54, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:51PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> Add info prints in sample kprobe handlers for ARM and ARM64
>> architecture.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
>> ---
>>
On 3 November 2013 23:55, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 08:12 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Jinag Liu,
>>
>> Sorry for the delayed review, I've been travelling.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:19:56PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> From: Jiang Liu
>>
>> If I try and email you at your Huawei addre
On 18 October 2013 14:02, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/10/17 20:17), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> This patchset adds support for kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes(jprobes)
>> and return probes(kretprobes) support for ARM64.
>>
>> Kprobes mechanism make use of sof
ry.S: do_dbg to route
software breakpoint (BRK64) exception to do_debug_exception()
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 21
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 86 -
arch/arm64/ke
condition fields
of opcode, the instruction is effectively NOP. Kprobes consider
this case as 'miss'.
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
---
arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile| 3 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/condn-helpers.c | 120 +
arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes-arm
Add info prints in sample kprobe handlers for ARM and ARM64
architecture.
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
---
samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c b/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c
index 366db1a
s and restore original return address in ELR_EL1,
this way, saved pt_regs still hold the original register context to be
carried back to the probed kernel function.
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/in
rejected right now.
System instructions are mostly enabled for stepping, except MSR
immediate that update "daif" flags in PSTATE, which are not safe
for probing(rejected)
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig| 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/kprobes.h
This patch enables kprobes support in arm64 common defconfig
file.
Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu
---
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 20 +---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index 31c81e9
nd comments.
Tested on ARM v8 fast model with sample modules from: samples/kprobes/
Sandeepa Prabhu (6):
arm64: support single-step and breakpoint handler hooks
arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support
arm64: Kprobes instruction simulation support
arm64: Add kernel return probes supp
On 27 September 2013 21:11, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 10:35 PM, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 25 September 2013 16:14, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> From: Jiang Liu
>>>
>>> Introduce aarch64_insn_patch_text() and __aarch64_insn_patch_text()
>>> to p
on your requirement.
> Thanks!
Hi Jiang,
Thanks. please CC me when you post next version of this patch, then I
can rebase my code and verify it.
Thanks,
Sandeepa
>
> On 09/25/2013 10:35 PM, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 25 September 2013 16:14, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> From: Jiang Li
On 25 September 2013 20:46, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:12:17 +0530
> Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>
>
>> > On aarch64, are instructions always word aligned? If not, it should be
>> > safe for stop machine to modify non word aligned instructions, but
On 25 September 2013 20:05, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:44:22 +0800
> Jiang Liu wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> index 8541c3a..50facfc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>
On 25 September 2013 16:14, Jiang Liu wrote:
> From: Jiang Liu
>
> Introduce aarch64_insn_patch_text() and __aarch64_insn_patch_text()
> to patch kernel and module code.
>
> Function aarch64_insn_patch_text() is a heavy version which may use
> stop_machine() to serialize all online CPUs, and func
44 matches
Mail list logo
