Messages in this thread | | | From | Sumit Garg <> | Date | Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:00:39 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] arm64: kgdb: Set PSTATE.SS to 1 to re-enable single-step |
| |
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 17:20, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:54:52PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Currently only the first attempt to single-step has any effect. After > > that all further stepping remains "stuck" at the same program counter > > value. > > > > Refer to the ARM Architecture Reference Manual (ARM DDI 0487E.a) D2.12, > > PSTATE.SS=1 should be set at each step before transferring the PE to the > > 'Active-not-pending' state. The problem here is PSTATE.SS=1 is not set > > since the second single-step. > > > > After the first single-step, the PE transferes to the 'Inactive' state, > > with PSTATE.SS=0 and MDSCR.SS=1, thus PSTATE.SS won't be set to 1 due to > > kernel_active_single_step()=true. Then the PE transferes to the > > 'Active-pending' state when ERET and returns to the debugger by step > > exception. > > > > Before this patch: > > ================== > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff3376039f0000, pid 1) on processor 0 due to Keyboard Entry > > [0]kdb> > > > > [0]kdb> > > [0]kdb> bp write_sysrq_trigger > > Instruction(i) BP #0 at 0xffffa45c13d09290 (write_sysrq_trigger) > > is enabled addr at ffffa45c13d09290, hardtype=0 installed=0 > > > > [0]kdb> go > > $ echo h > /proc/sysrq-trigger > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff4f7e453f8000, pid 175) on processor 1 due to Breakpoint @ 0xffffad651a309290 > > [1]kdb> ss > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff4f7e453f8000, pid 175) on processor 1 due to SS trap @ 0xffffad651a309294 > > [1]kdb> ss > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff4f7e453f8000, pid 175) on processor 1 due to SS trap @ 0xffffad651a309294 > > [1]kdb> > > > > After this patch: > > ================= > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff6851c39f0000, pid 1) on processor 0 due to Keyboard Entry > > [0]kdb> bp write_sysrq_trigger > > Instruction(i) BP #0 at 0xffffc02d2dd09290 (write_sysrq_trigger) > > is enabled addr at ffffc02d2dd09290, hardtype=0 installed=0 > > > > [0]kdb> go > > $ echo h > /proc/sysrq-trigger > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff6851c53c1840, pid 174) on processor 1 due to Breakpoint @ 0xffffc02d2dd09290 > > [1]kdb> ss > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff6851c53c1840, pid 174) on processor 1 due to SS trap @ 0xffffc02d2dd09294 > > [1]kdb> ss > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff6851c53c1840, pid 174) on processor 1 due to SS trap @ 0xffffc02d2dd09298 > > [1]kdb> ss > > > > Entering kdb (current=0xffff6851c53c1840, pid 174) on processor 1 due to SS trap @ 0xffffc02d2dd0929c > > [1]kdb> > > > > Fixes: 44679a4f142b ("arm64: KGDB: Add step debugging support") > > Co-developed-by: Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com> > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org> > > Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h | 1 + > > arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 5 +++++ > > arch/arm64/kernel/kgdb.c | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > > index 7b7e05c02691..ce3875ad5cd3 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/debug-monitors.h > > @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ void user_regs_reset_single_step(struct user_pt_regs *regs, > > void kernel_enable_single_step(struct pt_regs *regs); > > void kernel_disable_single_step(void); > > int kernel_active_single_step(void); > > +void kernel_regs_reset_single_step(struct pt_regs *regs); > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > > int reinstall_suspended_bps(struct pt_regs *regs); > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > > index 3da09778267e..9af898b22ed4 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c > > @@ -438,6 +438,11 @@ int kernel_active_single_step(void) > > } > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kernel_active_single_step); > > > > +void kernel_regs_reset_single_step(struct pt_regs *regs) > > +{ > > + set_regs_spsr_ss(regs); > > +} > > Just a nit on the naming here, but please can this be > kernel_rewind_single_step() instead? I think it's closer to the rewind > function we have for user tasks than the reset function. >
Sure, I will do the renaming in the next version.
-Sumit
> Cheers, > > Will
| |