Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0903251547150.21443-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:48:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	<maneesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 00/11] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces

There are some serious issues involving userspace breakpoints and the
legacy ptrace interface.  It all comes down to this: At what point
is a breakpoint registered for a ptrace caller?

Remember, to set up a breakpoint a debugger needs to call ptrace
twice: once to put the address in one of the DR0-DR3 registers and
once to set up DR7.  So when does the task own the breakpoint?

Logically, we should wait until DR7 gets set, because until then the
breakpoint is not active.  But then how do we let the caller know that
one of his breakpoints conflicts with a kernel breakpoint?

If we report an error during an attempt to set DR0-DR3 then at least
it's unambiguous.  But then how do we know when the task is _finished_
using the breakpoint?  It's under no obligation to set the register
back to 0.

Related to this is the question of how to store the task's versions of
DR0-DR3 when there is no associated active breakpoint.  Maybe it would
be best to keep the existing registers in the thread structure.


> +++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
...
> +struct task_struct *last_debugged_task;

Is this variable provided only for use by the hw_breakpoint_handler()
routine, for detecting lazy debug-register switching?  It won't work
right on SMP systems.  You need to use a per-CPU variable instead.

> +/*
> + * Install the debug register values for just the kernel, no thread.
> + */
> +void switch_to_none_hw_breakpoint(void)
> +{
> +	arch_install_none();
> +}

Even though "arch_install_none" was my own name, I don't like it very
much.  "arch_remove_user_hw_breakpoints" would be better.

> +/*
> + * Erase all the hardware breakpoint info associated with a thread.
> + *
> + * If tsk != current then tsk must not be usable (for example, a
> + * child being cleaned up from a failed fork).
> + */
> +void flush_thread_hw_breakpoint(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&hw_breakpoint_mutex);
> +
> +	/* The thread no longer has any breakpoints associated with it */
> +	clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_DEBUG);
> +	for (i = 0; i < HB_NUM; i++) {
> +		if (thread->hbp[i]) {
> +			hbp_user_refcount[i]--;
> +			kfree(thread->hbp[i]);

Ugh!  In general you shouldn't deallocate memory you didn't allocate
originally.  What will happen when there is a utrace interface in
addition to the ptrace interface?

> +			thread->hbp[i] = NULL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	thread->hbp_num_installed = 0;

This variable doesn't seem to serve any particularly useful purpose.
Eliminate it.

> +/*
> + * Validate the settings in a hw_breakpoint structure.
> + */
> +static int validate_settings(struct hw_breakpoint *bp, struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	unsigned int align;
> +
> +	if (!bp)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	ret = arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp, &align, tsk);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto err;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Check that the low-order bits of the address are appropriate
> +	 * for the alignment implied by len.
> +	 */
> +	if (bp->info.address & align)
> +		return -EINVAL;

I sort of think this test belongs in the arch-specific code also.
After all, some types of CPU might not have alignment constraints.

> +/*
> + * Actual implementation of unregister_user_hw_breakpoint.
> + */
> +void __unregister_user_hw_breakpoint(int pos, struct task_struct *tsk,
> +						struct hw_breakpoint *bp)

What happened to unregister_user_hw_breakpoint?  It doesn't seem to
exist any more.

In general, will the caller know the value of pos?  Probably not,
unless the caller is ptrace.  It shouldn't be one of the parameters.

> +{
> +	struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
> +
> +	if (!bp)
> +		return;
> +
> +	hbp_user_refcount[pos]--;
> +	thread->hbp_num_installed--;
> +
> +	arch_unregister_user_hw_breakpoint(pos, bp, tsk);
> +
> +	if (tsk == current)
> +		switch_to_thread_hw_breakpoint(tsk);
> +	kfree(tsk->thread.hbp[pos]);

Once again, memory should be deallocated by the same module that
allocated it.

> +/**
> + * unregister_kernel_hw_breakpoint - unregister a HW breakpoint for kernel space
> + * @bp: the breakpoint structure to unregister
> + *
> + * Uninstalls and unregisters @bp.
> + */
> +void unregister_kernel_hw_breakpoint(struct hw_breakpoint *bp)
> +{
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&hw_breakpoint_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Find the 'bp' in our list of breakpoints for kernel */
> +	for (i = hbp_kernel_pos; i < HB_NUM; i++)
> +		if (bp == hbp_kernel[i])
> +			break;

If you would store the register number in the arch-specific part of
struct hw_breakpoint then this loop wouldn't be needed.

> +	/*
> +	 * We'll shift the breakpoints one-level above to compact if
> +	 * unregistration creates a hole
> +	 */
> +	if (i > hbp_kernel_pos)
> +		for (j = i; j == hbp_kernel_pos; j--)
> +			hbp_kernel[j] = hbp_kernel[j-1];

The loop condition "j == hbp_kernel_pos" is wrong.  It should be
"j > hbp_kernel_pos".  And making this change shows that the preceding
"if" statement is redundant.

> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Delete the last kernel breakpoint entry after compaction and update
> +	 * the pointer to the lowest numbered kernel entry after updating its
> +	 * corresponding value in kdr7
> +	 */
> +	hbp_kernel[hbp_kernel_pos] = 0;
> +	arch_unregister_kernel_hw_breakpoint();

Even though it was part of my original design, there's no good reason
for making arch_register_kernel_hw_breakpoint and
arch_unregister_kernel_hw_breakpoint be separate functions.  There
should just be a single function: arch_update_kernel_hw_breakpoints.
The same is true for arch_update_user_hw_breakpoints.  In each case,
all that is needed is to recalculate the DR7 mask and value.

> +	hbp_kernel_pos++;

And this should be moved up one line, so that the arch-specific code
knows how many kernel breakpoints to register.

> +static int __init init_hw_breakpoint(void)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	hbp_kernel_pos = HB_NUM;
> +	for (i = 0; i < HB_NUM; i++)
> +		hbp_user_refcount[i] = 0;

This loop is unnecessary, since uninitialized static values are set to
0 in any case.

> +	load_debug_registers();

Hmm, I suspect this line can safely be omitted.

> +
> +	return register_die_notifier(&hw_breakpoint_exceptions_nb);
> +}


> +/*
> + * Install the kernel breakpoints in their debug registers.
> + * If 0 <= pos < HB_NUM, then set the debug register corresponding to that number
> + * If 'pos' is negative, then all debug registers are updated
> + */
> +void arch_install_kernel_hw_breakpoint(void *idx)

I don't like this design decision.  Why not simply install all the
kernel breakpoints every time?  The extra effort would be invisible
compared to the overhead of an IPI.

> +{
> +	int pos = *(int *)idx;
> +	unsigned long dr7;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	get_debugreg(dr7, 7);
> +
> +	/* Don't allow debug exceptions while we update the registers */
> +	set_debugreg(0UL, 7);
> +
> +	for (i = hbp_kernel_pos; i < HB_NUM; i++) {
> +		if ((pos >= 0) && (i != pos))
> +			continue;
> +		dr7 &= ~(dr7_masks[i]);
> +		if (hbp_kernel[i])
> +			set_debugreg(hbp_kernel[i]->info.address, i);
> +	}

For example, this loop could be written more simply as follows:

	switch (hbp_kernel_pos) {
	case 0:
		set_debugreg(hbp_kernel[0]->info.address, 0);
	case 1:
		set_debugreg(hbp_kernel[1]->info.address, 1);
		...
	}

> +
> +	dr7 |= kdr7;

Of course, you would also have to mask out the user bits from DR7.
You could do something like this:

	dr7 = (dr7 & dr7_user_mask[hbp_kernel_pos]) | kdr7;

where dr7_user_mask is a static array containing the five appropriate
mask values.

> +	/* No need to set DR6 */
> +	set_debugreg(dr7, 7);
> +}
> +
> +void arch_load_debug_registers()
> +{
> +	int pos = -1;
> +	/*
> +	 * We want all debug registers to be initialised for this
> +	 * CPU so pos = -1
> +	 */
> +	arch_install_kernel_hw_breakpoint((void *)&pos);
> +}

If you follow my suggestion above then this routine isn't needed at
all.  Callers can invoke arch_install_kernel_hw_breakpoints instead.

> +/*
> + * Install the thread breakpoints in their debug registers.
> + */
> +void arch_install_thread_hw_breakpoint(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
> +
> +	for (i = 0;  (i < hbp_kernel_pos) && hbp_user_refcount[i]; i++)
> +		if (thread->hbp[i])
> +			set_debugreg(thread->hbp[i]->info.address, i);

The loop condition is wrong.  But since this routine is on the hot
path we should avoid using a loop at all.  In fact, if the DR0-DR3
register values are added back into the thread structure, we could
simply do this:

	switch (hbp_kernel_pos) {
	case 4:
		set_debugreg(thread->dr3, 3);
	case 3:
		set_debugreg(thread->dr2, 2);
		...
	}

> +
> +	/* No need to set DR6 */
> +
> +	set_debugreg((kdr7 | thread->dr7), 7);
> +}

> +/*
> + * Check for virtual address in kernel space.
> + */
> +int arch_check_va_in_kernelspace(unsigned long va, u8 hbp_len)
> +{
> +	unsigned int len;
> +
> +	len = get_hbp_len(hbp_len);
> +
> +	return ((va >= TASK_SIZE) && ((va + len) >= TASK_SIZE));

In theory this should be (va + len - 1).

> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Store a breakpoint's encoded address, length, and type.
> + */
> +void arch_store_info(struct hw_breakpoint *bp)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * User-space requests will always have the address field populated
> +	 * For kernel-addresses, either the address or symbol name can be
> +	 * specified.
> +	 */
> +	if (bp->info.address)
> +		return;
> +	if (bp->info.name)
> +		bp->info.address = (unsigned long)
> +					kallsyms_lookup_name(bp->info.name);
> +}

I still think the address and name fields shouldn't be arch-specific.
After all, won't _every_ arch need to have a copy of exactly this same
function?

> +/*
> + * Modify an existing user breakpoint structure.
> + */
> +int arch_modify_user_hw_breakpoint(int pos, struct hw_breakpoint *bp,
> +		struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
> +
> +	/* Check if the register to be modified was enabled by the thread */
> +	if (!(thread->dr7 & (1 << (pos * DR_ENABLE_SIZE))))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	thread->dr7 &= ~dr7_masks[pos];
> +	thread->dr7 |= encode_dr7(pos, bp->info.len, bp->info.type);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

It might be possible to eliminate this rather awkward code, once the
DR0-DR3 values are added back into the thread structure.

> +/*
> + * Copy out the debug register information for a core dump.
> + *
> + * tsk must be equal to current.
> + */
> +void dump_thread_hw_breakpoint(struct task_struct *tsk, int u_debugreg[8])
> +{
> +	struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	memset(u_debugreg, 0, sizeof u_debugreg);
> +	for (i = 0; i < thread->hbp_num_installed && thread->hbp[i]; ++i)
> +		u_debugreg[i] = thread->hbp[i]->info.address;

The loop condition is wrong, since you don't compact userspace
breakpoints.  But it could be unrolled into:

	u_debugreg[0] = thread->dr0;
	...
	u_debugreg[3] = thread->dr3;

> +	u_debugreg[7] = thread->dr7;
> +	u_debugreg[6] = thread->dr6;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handle debug exception notifications.
> + */
> +int __kprobes hw_breakpoint_handler(struct die_args *args)
> +{
> +	int i, rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
> +	struct hw_breakpoint *bp;
> +	/* The DR6 value is stored in args->err */
> +	unsigned long dr7, dr6 = args->err;

Please change this.  (I should have changed it long ago, but I never
got around to it.)  Instead of passing the DR6 value in args->err,
pass a pointer to the dr6 variable in do_debug().  That way the
handler routines can turn off bits in that variable and do_debug() can
see which bits remain set at the end.

Of course, this will require a corresponding change to the
post_kprobe_handler() routine.

> +
> +	if (dr6 & DR_STEP)
> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;

This test is wrong.  Why did you change it?  It should be:

	if (!(dr6 & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3)))

In theory it's possible to have both the Single-Step bit and a Debug-Trap
bit set at the same time.

> +
> +	get_debugreg(dr7, 7);
> +
> +	/* Disable breakpoints during exception handling */
> +	set_debugreg(0UL, 7);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Assert that local interrupts are disabled
> +	 * Reset the DRn bits in the virtualized register value.
> +	 * The ptrace trigger routine will add in whatever is needed.
> +	 */
> +	current->thread.dr6 &= ~(DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3);
> +
> +	/* Lazy debug register switching */
> +	if (last_debugged_task != current)
> +		switch_to_none_hw_breakpoint();
> +
> +	/* Handle all the breakpoints that were triggered */
> +	for (i = 0; i < HB_NUM; ++i) {
> +		if (likely(!(dr6 & (DR_TRAP0 << i))))
> +			continue;
> +		/*
> +		 * Find the corresponding hw_breakpoint structure and
> +		 * invoke its triggered callback.
> +		 */
> +		if (hbp_user_refcount[i])
> +			bp = current->thread.hbp[i];
> +		else if (i >= hbp_kernel_pos)
> +			bp = hbp_kernel[i];
> +		else	/* False alarm due to lazy DR switching */
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (!bp)
> +			break;

This logic is wrong.  It should go like this:

		if (i >= hbp_kernel_pos)
			bp = hbp_kernel[i];
		else {
			bp = current->thread.hbp[i];
			if (!bp) {
				/* False alarm due to lazy DR switching */
				continue;
			}
		}

> +
> +		switch (bp->info.type) {
> +		case HW_BREAKPOINT_WRITE:
> +		case HW_BREAKPOINT_RW:
> +			if (bp->triggered)

Do you really need to test bp->triggered?

> +				(bp->triggered)(bp, args->regs);
> +
> +			if (arch_check_va_in_userspace(bp->info.address,
> +							bp->info.len))
> +				rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
> +			else
> +				rc = NOTIFY_STOP;;
> +			goto exit;

What on Earth is the reason for all this?  What happens if two
breakpoints get triggered at the same time?

> +		case HW_BREAKPOINT_EXECUTE:
> +			/*
> +			 * Presently we allow instruction breakpoints only in
> +			 * user-space when requested through ptrace.
> +			 */
> +			if (arch_check_va_in_userspace(bp->info.address,
> +							bp->info.len)) {
> +				(bp->triggered)(bp, args->regs);

Why do you need this test?

> +				/*
> +				 * do_debug will notify user through a SIGTRAP
> +				 * signal So we are not requesting a
> +				 * NOTIFY_STOP here
> +				 */
> +				rc = NOTIFY_DONE;
> +				goto exit;
> +			}
> +		}

In fact, why do you distinguish between data breakpoints and code
breakpoints in the first place?  Shouldn't they be treated the same?

> +	}
> +
> +	/* Stop processing further if the exception is a stray one */

That comment is wrong.  It should say something like this:

	/* Stop processing if there's nothing more to do */

> +	if (!(dr6 & ~(DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3)))
> +		rc = NOTIFY_STOP;

On the other hand, I'm not sure that this NOTIFY_STOP will help much
anyway.  All it does is provide an early exit from the notifier chain
when a hardware breakpoint occurs.  But if there wasn't also a
Single-Step exception, the kprobes handler shouldn't take long to
run.  Hence an early exit doesn't provide much advantage.

> +exit:
> +	set_debugreg(dr7, 7);
> +	return rc;
> +}


> @@ -530,13 +530,14 @@ asmlinkage __kprobes struct pt_regs *syn
>  dotraplinkage void __kprobes do_debug(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> -	unsigned long condition;
> +	unsigned long dr6;
>  	int si_code;
>  
> -	get_debugreg(condition, 6);
> +	get_debugreg(dr6, 6);
> +	set_debugreg(0, 6);	/* DR6 may or may not be cleared by the CPU */
>  
>  	/* Catch kmemcheck conditions first of all! */
> -	if (condition & DR_STEP && kmemcheck_trap(regs))
> +	if (dr6 & DR_STEP && kmemcheck_trap(regs))
>  		return;

Are you sure this is right?  Is it possible for any of the DR_TRAPn bits
to be set as well when this happens?


> @@ -83,6 +85,8 @@ void exit_thread(void)
>  		put_cpu();
>  		kfree(bp);
>  	}
> +	if (unlikely(t->dr7))
> +		flush_thread_hw_breakpoint(me);

Shouldn't you test the TIF_DEBUG flag instead?  After all, the thread
might very well have some hw_breakpoint structures allocated even though
t->dr7 is 0.

>  
>  	ds_exit_thread(current);
>  }
> @@ -103,14 +107,9 @@ void flush_thread(void)
>  	}
>  #endif
>  
> -	clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_DEBUG);
> +	if (unlikely(tsk->thread.dr7))
> +		flush_thread_hw_breakpoint(tsk);

Same thing here.

> @@ -265,7 +267,14 @@ int copy_thread(int nr, unsigned long cl
>  
>  	task_user_gs(p) = get_user_gs(regs);
>  
> +	p->thread.io_bitmap_ptr = NULL;
> +
>  	tsk = current;
> +	err = -ENOMEM;
> +	if (unlikely(tsk->thread.dr7)) {
> +		if (copy_thread_hw_breakpoint(tsk, p, clone_flags))
> +			goto out;
> +	}

And here.

> @@ -426,6 +438,25 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, 
>  		lazy_load_gs(next->gs);
>  
>  	percpu_write(current_task, next_p);
> +	/*
> +	 * There's a problem with moving the switch_to_thread_hw_breakpoint()
> +	 * call before current is updated.  Suppose a kernel breakpoint is
> +	 * triggered in between the two.  The hw-breakpoint handler will see
> +	 * that current is different from the task pointer stored in the chbi
> +	 * area, so it will think the task pointer is leftover from an old task
> +	 * (lazy switching) and will erase it.  Then until the next context
> +	 * switch, no user-breakpoints will be installed.
> +	 *
> +	 * The real problem is that it's impossible to update both current and
> +	 * chbi->bp_task at the same instant, so there will always be a window
> +	 * in which they disagree and a breakpoint might get triggered.  Since
> +	 * we use lazy switching, we are forced to assume that a disagreement
> +	 * means that current is correct and chbi->bp_task is old.  But if you
> +	 * move the code above then you'll create a window in which current is
> +	 * old and chbi->bp_task is correct.
> +	 */

Don't you think this comment should be updated to match the changes
you have made in the code?  There no longer is a chbi area, for example.


Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists