linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: kernel: Support extracting off-line stack traces from user-space with perf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:41:49 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Archer Yan <ayan@...ecomp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: kernel: Support extracting off-line stack
 traces from user-space with perf

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:12:28PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 2/3/21 6:40 PM, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:56:06PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > On 02/01/2021 06:43 PM, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 08:55:59PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> > > > > +#ifndef _ASM_MIPS_PERF_REGS_H
> > > > > +#define _ASM_MIPS_PERF_REGS_H
> > > > > +
> > > > > +enum perf_event_mips_regs {
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_PC,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R1,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R2,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R3,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R4,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R5,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R6,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R7,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R8,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R9,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R10,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R11,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R12,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R13,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R14,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R15,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R16,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R17,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R18,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R19,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R20,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R21,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R22,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R23,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R24,
> > > > > +	PERF_REG_MIPS_R25,
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * 26 and 27 are k0 and k1, they are always clobbered thus not
> > > > > +	 * stored.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > haveing this hole here make all code more complicated. Does it hurt
> > > > to have R26 and R27 in the list ?
> > > I think there is no effect if have R26 and R27 in the list.
> > > 
> > > In the perf_reg_value(), PERF_REG_MIPS_R{26,27} are default case.
> > why make them special ? After all they are real registers and are only
> > defined special by current ABIs.
> 
> 
> By convention, $26 and $27 are k registers which are reserved for use
> by the OS kernel.

believe me, I knew that already. But from a CPU standpoint they are
just registers.

Anyway I'm fine with just adding R26 and R27 to the enum.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]