lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: x86/entry vs kgdb
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:18:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:36:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Since you seem to care about kgdb, I figured you might want to fix this
> > before I mark it broken on x86 (we've been considering doing that for a
> > while).
> >
> > AFAICT the whole debugreg usage of kgdb-x86_64 is completely hosed; it
> > doesn't respsect the normal exclusion zones as per arch_build_bp_info().
> >
> > That is, breakpoints must never be in:
> >
> > - in the cpu_entry_area
> > - in .entry.text
> > - in .noinstr.text
> > - in anything else marked NOKPROBE
> >
> > by not respecting these constraints it is trivial to completely and
> > utterly hose the machine. The entry rework that is current underway will
> > explicitly not deal with #DB triggering in any of those places.
>
> This also very much includes single stepping those bits. Which KGDB
> obviously also does not respects.

For breakpoints there's already a pre-poke validation hook that
architectures can override if they want to. I can modify the default
implementation to include checking the nokprobe list.

Stepping is a bit more complex. There are hooks for some of the
underlying work but not pre-step validation hook. I'll see if we can add
one.


Daniel.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-26 18:17    [W:0.046 / U:4.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site