Messages in this thread | | | From | David Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] arm64: add conditional instruction simulation support | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:19:52 -0400 |
| |
On 06/03/2016 11:53 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 23:26:17 -0400 > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > >> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> >> >> Cease using the arm32 arm_check_condition() function and replace it with >> a local version for use in deprecated instruction support on arm64. Also >> make the function table used by this available for future use by kprobes >> and/or uprobes. >> >> This function is dervied from code written by Sandeepa Prabhu. >> > > Basically looks good to me. I have some comments; > >> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 3 ++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 3 +- >> arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 19 ++++++- >> arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h >> index 9785d10..98e4edd 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h >> @@ -406,6 +406,9 @@ u32 aarch64_extract_system_register(u32 insn); >> u32 aarch32_insn_extract_reg_num(u32 insn, int offset); >> u32 aarch32_insn_mcr_extract_opc2(u32 insn); >> u32 aarch32_insn_mcr_extract_crm(u32 insn); >> + >> +typedef bool (pstate_check_t)(unsigned long); >> +extern pstate_check_t * const opcode_condition_checks[16]; > > Are those condition checkers only for aarch32 opcode? or > general for aarch64 too? If it is only for aarch32, we'd better > add aarch32 prefix. >
I have this vague recollection there once was a reason for this but I can't for the life of me remember why. I altered the symbol name to something that begins with aarch32.
>> #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ >> >> #endif /* __ASM_INSN_H */ >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile >> index 2173149..4653aca 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile >> @@ -26,8 +26,7 @@ $(obj)/%.stub.o: $(obj)/%.o FORCE >> $(call if_changed,objcopy) >> >> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += sys32.o kuser32.o signal32.o \ >> - sys_compat.o entry32.o \ >> - ../../arm/kernel/opcodes.o >> + sys_compat.o entry32.o >> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER) += ftrace.o entry-ftrace.o >> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_MODULES) += arm64ksyms.o module.o >> arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS) += module-plts.o >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c >> index c37202c..88b9165 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c >> @@ -366,6 +366,21 @@ static int emulate_swpX(unsigned int address, unsigned int *data, >> return res; >> } >> >> +#define ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND 0xf >> + >> +static unsigned int __kprobes arm32_check_condition(u32 opcode, u32 psr) > > Would you be OK for using arm32 instead of aarch32 prefix?
I think you meant the opposite of that? I guess that would make sense, and would be simple enough since it's an internal function. I will change arm32 to aarch32.
> >> +{ >> + u32 cc_bits = opcode >> 28; >> + >> + if (cc_bits != ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND) { >> + if ((*opcode_condition_checks[cc_bits])(psr)) >> + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_PASS; >> + else >> + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_FAIL; >> + } >> + return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_UNCOND; >> +} > > Thank you, >
Thanks, -dl
| |