[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56EFCF27.3090903@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:38:31 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
CC: <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
<mark.rutland@....com>, <Dave.Martin@....com>,
<hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <james.morse@....com>,
<yang.shi@...aro.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<marc.zyngier@....com>, <richard@....at>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Fix watchpoint recursion when single-step is
wrongly triggered in irq
On 2016/3/21 18:24, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> On 21/03/2016:08:37:50 AM, He Kuang wrote:
>> On arm64, watchpoint handler enables single-step to bypass the next
>> instruction for not recursive enter. If an irq is triggered right
>> after the watchpoint, a single-step will be wrongly triggered in irq
>> handler, which causes the watchpoint address not stepped over and
>> system hang.
> Does patch [1] resolves this issue as well? I hope it should. Patch[1] has still
> not been sent for review. Your test result will be helpful.
>
> ~Pratyush
>
> [1] https://github.com/pratyushanand/linux/commit/7623c8099ac22eaa00e7e0f52430f7a4bd154652
Could you please provide a test program for your case so we can test
it on our devices? I guess setting breakpoint on a "copy_from_user()"
accessing an invalid address can trigger this problem?
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists