linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test: Test 73 Sig

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

Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:43:43 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        acme@...nel.org, svens@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Test 73 Sig_trap fails on s390

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:40:04PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:

[...]

> > Both Arm and Arm64 platforms cannot support signal handler with
> > breakpoint, please see the details in [1].  So I think we need
> > something like below:
> >
> > static int test__sigtrap(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_unused)
> > {
> >         ...
> >
> >         if (!BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED) {
> >                 pr_debug("Test not supported on this architecture");
> >                 return TEST_SKIP;
> >         }
> >
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> > Since we have defined BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED, I think we can reuse it at
> > here.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157169993406.29376.12473771029179755767.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> 
> Does this limitation also exist for address watchpoints? The sigtrap
> test does not make use of instruction breakpoints, but instead just
> sets up a watchpoint on access to a data address.

Yes, after reading the code, the flow for either instrution breakpoint
or watchpoint both use the single step [1], thus the signal handler will
take the single step execution and lead to the infinite loop.

I am not the best person to answer this question; @Will, could you
confirm for this?  Thanks!

Leo

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c