[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200629152523.2494198-161-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:25:05 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@...driver.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 160/178] arm64: perf: Report the PC value in REGS_ABI_32 mode
From: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@...driver.com>
commit 8dfe804a4031ca6ba3a3efb2048534249b64f3a5 upstream.
A 32-bit perf querying the registers of a compat task using REGS_ABI_32
will receive zeroes from w15, when it expects to find the PC.
Return the PC value for register dwarf register 15 when returning register
values for a compat task to perf.
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Signed-off-by: Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@...driver.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1589165527-188401-1-git-send-email-jiping.ma2@windriver.com
[will: Shuffled code and added a comment]
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
index 0bbac612146ea..666b225aeb3ad 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c
@@ -15,15 +15,34 @@ u64 perf_reg_value(struct pt_regs *regs, int idx)
return 0;
/*
- * Compat (i.e. 32 bit) mode:
- * - PC has been set in the pt_regs struct in kernel_entry,
- * - Handle SP and LR here.
+ * Our handling of compat tasks (PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32) is weird, but
+ * we're stuck with it for ABI compatability reasons.
+ *
+ * For a 32-bit consumer inspecting a 32-bit task, then it will look at
+ * the first 16 registers (see arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h).
+ * These correspond directly to a prefix of the registers saved in our
+ * 'struct pt_regs', with the exception of the PC, so we copy that down
+ * (x15 corresponds to SP_hyp in the architecture).
+ *
+ * So far, so good.
+ *
+ * The oddity arises when a 64-bit consumer looks at a 32-bit task and
+ * asks for registers beyond PERF_REG_ARM_MAX. In this case, we return
+ * SP_usr, LR_usr and PC in the positions where the AArch64 SP, LR and
+ * PC registers would normally live. The initial idea was to allow a
+ * 64-bit unwinder to unwind a 32-bit task and, although it's not clear
+ * how well that works in practice, somebody might be relying on it.
+ *
+ * At the time we make a sample, we don't know whether the consumer is
+ * 32-bit or 64-bit, so we have to cater for both possibilities.
*/
if (compat_user_mode(regs)) {
if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
return regs->compat_sp;
if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_LR)
return regs->compat_lr;
+ if (idx == 15)
+ return regs->pc;
}
if ((u32)idx == PERF_REG_ARM64_SP)
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists