AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git synced 2024-11-30 14:36:46 +07:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
c198b121b1
linux_dsm_epyc7002/arch/arm/include/asm/kprobes.h

87 lines
2.6 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
/*
[ARM] move include/asm-arm to arch/arm/include/asm Move platform independent header files to arch/arm/include/asm, leaving those in asm/arch* and asm/plat* alone. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2008-08-02 16:55:55 +07:00
* arch/arm/include/asm/kprobes.h
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
*
* Copyright (C) 2006, 2007 Motorola Inc.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
* General Public License for more details.
*/
#ifndef _ARM_KPROBES_H
#define _ARM_KPROBES_H
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/ptrace.h>
ARM: Fix missing includes in kprobes sources Make sure includes in ARM kprobes sources are done explicitly. Do not rely on includes from other includes. Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org> Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2014-03-07 06:17:52 +07:00
#include <linux/notifier.h>
ARM kprobes: core code This is a full implementation of Kprobes including Jprobes and Kretprobes support. This ARM implementation does not follow the usual kprobes double- exception model. The traditional model is where the initial kprobes breakpoint calls kprobe_handler(), which returns from exception to execute the instruction in its original context, then immediately re-enters after a second breakpoint (or single-stepping exception) into post_kprobe_handler(), each time the probe is hit.. The ARM implementation only executes one kprobes exception per hit, so no post_kprobe_handler() phase. All side-effects from the kprobe'd instruction are resolved before returning from the initial exception. As a result, all instructions are _always_ effectively boosted regardless of the type of instruction, and even regardless of whether or not there is a post-handler for the probe. Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
#define __ARCH_WANT_KPROBES_INSN_SLOT
#define MAX_INSN_SIZE 2
#define flush_insn_slot(p) do { } while (0)
#define kretprobe_blacklist_size 0
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
typedef u32 kprobe_opcode_t;
struct kprobe;
ARM: move shared uprobe/kprobe definitions into new include file Separate the kprobe-only definitions from the definitions needed by both kprobes and uprobes. Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org> Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2014-03-07 05:53:34 +07:00
#include <asm/probes.h>
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
ARM: Make arch_specific_insn a define for new arch_probes_insn structure Because the common underlying code for ARM kprobes and uprobes needs to share a common architecrure-specific context structure, and because the generic kprobes include file insists on defining this to a dummy structure when kprobes is not configured, a new common structure is required which can exist when uprobes is configured without kprobes. In this case kprobes will define a dummy structure, but without the define aliasing the two structure tags it will not affect uprobes and the shared probes code. Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org> Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2014-03-06 09:41:29 +07:00
#define arch_specific_insn arch_probes_insn
ARM kprobes: core code This is a full implementation of Kprobes including Jprobes and Kretprobes support. This ARM implementation does not follow the usual kprobes double- exception model. The traditional model is where the initial kprobes breakpoint calls kprobe_handler(), which returns from exception to execute the instruction in its original context, then immediately re-enters after a second breakpoint (or single-stepping exception) into post_kprobe_handler(), each time the probe is hit.. The ARM implementation only executes one kprobes exception per hit, so no post_kprobe_handler() phase. All side-effects from the kprobe'd instruction are resolved before returning from the initial exception. As a result, all instructions are _always_ effectively boosted regardless of the type of instruction, and even regardless of whether or not there is a post-handler for the probe. Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
struct prev_kprobe {
struct kprobe *kp;
unsigned int status;
};
/* per-cpu kprobe control block */
struct kprobe_ctlblk {
unsigned int kprobe_status;
struct prev_kprobe prev_kprobe;
struct pt_regs jprobe_saved_regs;
char jprobes_stack[MAX_STACK_SIZE];
};
void arch_remove_kprobe(struct kprobe *);
int kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr);
int kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
unsigned long val, void *data);
ARM: kprobes: enable OPTPROBES for ARM 32 This patch introduce kprobeopt for ARM 32. Limitations: - Currently only kernel compiled with ARM ISA is supported. - Offset between probe point and optinsn slot must not larger than 32MiB. Masami Hiramatsu suggests replacing 2 words, it will make things complex. Futher patch can make such optimization. Kprobe opt on ARM is relatively simpler than kprobe opt on x86 because ARM instruction is always 4 bytes aligned and 4 bytes long. This patch replace probed instruction by a 'b', branch to trampoline code and then calls optimized_callback(). optimized_callback() calls opt_pre_handler() to execute kprobe handler. It also emulate/simulate replaced instruction. When unregistering kprobe, the deferred manner of unoptimizer may leave branch instruction before optimizer is called. Different from x86_64, which only copy the probed insn after optprobe_template_end and reexecute them, this patch call singlestep to emulate/simulate the insn directly. Futher patch can optimize this behavior. Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2015-01-09 13:37:36 +07:00
/* optinsn template addresses */
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_entry;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_val;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_call;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_end;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_sub_sp;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_add_sp;
ARM: optprobes: execute instruction during restoring if possible. This patch removes software emulation or simulation for most of probed instructions. If the instruction doesn't use PC relative addressing, it will be translated into following instructions in the restore code in code template: ldmia {r0 - r14} // restore all instruction except PC <instruction> // direct execute the probed instruction b next_insn // branch to next instruction. Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2015-01-05 18:34:47 +07:00
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_restore_begin;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_restore_orig_insn;
extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_restore_end;
ARM: kprobes: enable OPTPROBES for ARM 32 This patch introduce kprobeopt for ARM 32. Limitations: - Currently only kernel compiled with ARM ISA is supported. - Offset between probe point and optinsn slot must not larger than 32MiB. Masami Hiramatsu suggests replacing 2 words, it will make things complex. Futher patch can make such optimization. Kprobe opt on ARM is relatively simpler than kprobe opt on x86 because ARM instruction is always 4 bytes aligned and 4 bytes long. This patch replace probed instruction by a 'b', branch to trampoline code and then calls optimized_callback(). optimized_callback() calls opt_pre_handler() to execute kprobe handler. It also emulate/simulate replaced instruction. When unregistering kprobe, the deferred manner of unoptimizer may leave branch instruction before optimizer is called. Different from x86_64, which only copy the probed insn after optprobe_template_end and reexecute them, this patch call singlestep to emulate/simulate the insn directly. Futher patch can optimize this behavior. Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
2015-01-09 13:37:36 +07:00
#define MAX_OPTIMIZED_LENGTH 4
#define MAX_OPTINSN_SIZE \
((unsigned long)&optprobe_template_end - \
(unsigned long)&optprobe_template_entry)
#define RELATIVEJUMP_SIZE 4
struct arch_optimized_insn {
/*
* copy of the original instructions.
* Different from x86, ARM kprobe_opcode_t is u32.
*/
#define MAX_COPIED_INSN DIV_ROUND_UP(RELATIVEJUMP_SIZE, sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t))
kprobe_opcode_t copied_insn[MAX_COPIED_INSN];
/* detour code buffer */
kprobe_opcode_t *insn;
/*
* We always copy one instruction on ARM,
* so size will always be 4, and unlike x86, there is no
* need for a size field.
*/
};
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-12 05:20:10 +07:00
#endif /* _ARM_KPROBES_H */
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink