Message-ID: <543221B0.3020008@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:59:28 +0900
From:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	"Vijaya.Kumar@...iumnetworks.com" <Vijaya.Kumar@...iumnetworks.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] arm64: kgdb: fix single stepping

On 10/04/2014 01:03 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Akashi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:54:13PM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> I tried to verify kgdb in vanilla kernel on fast model, but it seems that
>> the single stepping with kgdb doesn't work correctly since its first
>> appearance at v3.15.
>>
>> On v3.15, 'stepi' command after breaking the kernel at some breakpoint
>> steps forward to the next instruction, but the succeeding 'stepi' never
>> goes beyond that.
>> On v3.16, 'stepi' moves forward and stops at the next instruction just
>> after enable_dbg in el1_dbg, and never goes beyond that. This variance of
>> behavior seems to come in with the following patch in v3.16:
>>
>>      commit 2a2830703a23 ("arm64: debug: avoid accessing mdscr_el1 on fault
>>      paths where possible")
>>
>> This patch
>> (1) moves kgdb_disable_single_step() from 'c' command handling to single
>>      step handler.
>>      This makes sure that single stepping gets effective at every 's' command.
>>      Please note that, under the current implementation, single step bit in
>>      spsr, which is cleared by the first single stepping, will not be set
>>      again for the consecutive 's' commands because single step bit in mdscr
>>      is still kept on (that is, kernel_active_single_step() in
>>      kgdb_arch_handle_exception() is true).
>> (2) removes 'enable_dbg' in el1_dbg.
>>      Single step bit in mdscr is turned on in do_handle_exception()->
>>      kgdb_handle_expection() before returning to debugged context, and if
>>      debug exception is enabled in el1_dbg, we will see unexpected single-
>>      stepping in el1_dbg.
>> (3) masks interrupts while single-stepping one instruction.
>>      If an interrupt is caught during processing a single-stepping, debug
>>      exception is unintentionally enabled by el1_irq's 'enable_dbg' before
>>      returning to debugged context.
>>      Thus, like in (2), we will see unexpected single-stepping in el1_irq.
>>
>> Basically (1) is for v3.15, (2) and (3) with (1) for v3.16.
>>
>> With those changes, we will see another problem if a breakpoint is set
>> at interrupt-sensible places, like gic_handle_irq():
>
> So it seems to me like kgdb is a complete mess in this area. The low-level
> debug exception code for arm64 will single-step *into* interrupt handlers. I
> believe that this is the correct behaviour, as otherwise we're artifically
> restricting what you can and can't debug (for example, leaving debug
> exceptions masked on the interrupt path means that you can't put breakpoints
> in interrupt handlers).

I agree that we should be able to debug even in an interrupt context.

>>      KGDB: re-enter error: breakpoint removed ffffffc000081258
>>      ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>      WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 650 at kernel/debug/debug_core.c:435
>> 					kgdb_handle_exception+0x1dc/0x1f4()
>>      Modules linked in:
>>      CPU: 0 PID: 650 Comm: sh Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #177
>>      Call trace:
>>      [<ffffffc000087fac>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x130
>>      [<ffffffc0000880ec>] show_stack+0x10/0x1c
>>      [<ffffffc0004d683c>] dump_stack+0x74/0xb8
>>      [<ffffffc0000ab824>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xb4
>>      [<ffffffc0000ab90c>] warn_slowpath_null+0x14/0x20
>>      [<ffffffc000121bfc>] kgdb_handle_exception+0x1d8/0x1f4
>>      [<ffffffc000092ffc>] kgdb_brk_fn+0x18/0x28
>>      [<ffffffc0000821c8>] brk_handler+0x9c/0xe8
>>      [<ffffffc0000811e8>] do_debug_exception+0x3c/0xac
>>      Exception stack(0xffffffc07e027650 to 0xffffffc07e027770)
>>      ...
>>      [<ffffffc000083cac>] el1_dbg+0x14/0x68
>>      [<ffffffc00012178c>] kgdb_cpu_enter+0x464/0x5c0
>>      [<ffffffc000121bb4>] kgdb_handle_exception+0x190/0x1f4
>>      [<ffffffc000092ffc>] kgdb_brk_fn+0x18/0x28
>>      [<ffffffc0000821c8>] brk_handler+0x9c/0xe8
>>      [<ffffffc0000811e8>] do_debug_exception+0x3c/0xac
>>      Exception stack(0xffffffc07e027ac0 to 0xffffffc07e027be0)
>>      ...
>>      [<ffffffc000083cac>] el1_dbg+0x14/0x68
>>      [<ffffffc00032e4b4>] __handle_sysrq+0x11c/0x190
>>      [<ffffffc00032e93c>] write_sysrq_trigger+0x4c/0x60
>>      [<ffffffc0001e7d58>] proc_reg_write+0x54/0x84
>>      [<ffffffc000192fa4>] vfs_write+0x98/0x1c8
>>      [<ffffffc0001939b0>] SyS_write+0x40/0xa0
>>
>> Once some interrupt occurs, a breakpoint at gic_handle_irq() triggers kgdb.
>> Kgdb then calls kgdb_roundup_cpus() to sync with other cpus.
>> Current kgdb_roundup_cpus() unmasks interrupts temporarily to
>> use smp_call_function().
>> This eventually allows another interrupt to occur and likely results in
>> hitting a breakpoint at gic_handle_irq() again since debug exception is
>> always enabled in el1_irq.
>>
>> We can avoid this issue by specifying "nokgdbroundup" in kernel parameter,
>> but this will also leave other cpus be in unknown state in terms of kgdb,
>> and may result in interfering with kgdb activity.
>
> Yuck. This really sounds like kgdb is broken in its SMP synchronisation
> for arm64. On x86, they use a NMI and powerpc uses an IPI which can run
> with irqs disabled. Since we don't have an NMI, how about we do the
> following to avoid the panic?
>
>    (1) Change our kgdb_roundup_cpus to use smp_call_function_single_async,
>        which will avoid the need to enable interrupts

It seems that we will have to implement, some sort of, async-version of
smp_call_function() here.

>    (2) Introduce a timeout into the waiting loop in kgdb_cpu_enter, where
>        we spin on &slaves_in_kgdb and warn if the timeout expires.

Before trying this, I need understand more about smp_call_function(), especially
why we can't call it with interrupts disabled.

-Takahiro AKASHI

> Will
>
--
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