[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/22] ARM: add mechanism for late code patching
Hi Nicolas,

On 8/4/2012 1:38 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> extern unsigned __patch_table_begin, __patch_table_end;
> You could use "exttern void __patch_table_begin" so those symbols don't
> get any type that could be misused by mistake, while you still can take
> their addresses.

Looks like we'll have to stick with a non-void type here. The compiler
throws a warning when we try to take the address of a void.

> Did you verify with some test program that your patching routines do
> produce the same opcodes as the assembled equivalent for all possible
> shift values? Especially for Thumb2 code which isn't as trivial to get
> right as the ARM one.

We've refactored the patching code into separate functions as:

static int do_patch_imm8_arm(u32 insn, u32 imm, u32 *ninsn);
static int do_patch_imm8_thumb(u32 insn, u32 imm, u32 *ninsn);

With this, the following test code has been used to verify the generated
instruction encoding:

u32 arm_check[] = {
0xe2810041, 0xe2810082, 0xe2810f41, 0xe2810f82, 0xe2810e41,
0xe2810e82, 0xe2810d41, 0xe2810d82, 0xe2810c41, 0xe2810c82,
0xe2810b41, 0xe2810b82, 0xe2810a41, 0xe2810a82, 0xe2810941,
0xe2810982, 0xe2810841, 0xe2810882, 0xe2810741, 0xe2810782,
0xe2810641, 0xe2810682, 0xe2810541, 0xe2810582, 0xe2810441,

u32 thumb_check[] = {
0xf1010081, 0xf5017081, 0xf5017001, 0xf5016081, 0xf5016001,
0xf5015081, 0xf5015001, 0xf5014081, 0xf5014001, 0xf5013081,
0xf5013001, 0xf5012081, 0xf5012001, 0xf5011081, 0xf5011001,
0xf5010081, 0xf5010001, 0xf1017081, 0xf1017001, 0xf1016081,
0xf1016001, 0xf1015081, 0xf1015001, 0xf1014081, 0xf1014001,

int do_test(void)
int i, ret;
u32 ninsn, insn;

insn = arm_check[0];
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arm_check); i++) {
ret = do_patch_imm8_arm(insn, 0x41 << i, &ninsn);
if (ret < 0)
pr_err("patch failed at shift %d\n", i);
if (ninsn != arm_check[i])
pr_err("mismatch at %d, expect %x, got %x\n",
i, arm_check[i], ninsn);

insn = thumb_check[0];
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(thumb_check); i++) {
ret = do_patch_imm8_thumb(insn, 0x81 << i, &ninsn);
if (ret < 0)
pr_err("patch failed at shift %d\n", i);
if (ninsn != thumb_check[i])
pr_err("mismatch at %d, expect %x, got %x\n",
i, thumb_check[i], ninsn);

Any ideas on improving these tests?

- Cyril

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-08 01:41    [W:0.126 / U:62.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site