Re: [PING][PATCH v2 PR gdb/21870] aarch64: Leftover uncleared debug registers

Weimin Pan
2019-02-13T01:05:36Z

On 2/12/2019 6:46 AM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>> On 12 Feb 2019, at 01:10, Weimin Pan <weimin.pan@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/11/2019 7:24 AM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/aarch64-dbreg-contents.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/aarch64-dbreg-contents.c
>>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>>>> index 0000000..85d4a03
>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/aarch64-dbreg-contents.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
>>>>>>>>>> +/* Test case for setting a memory-write unaligned watchpoint on aarch64.
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
>>>>>>>>>> + warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
>>>>>>>>>> + arising from the use of this software.
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>>>>>>>>>> + including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
>>>>>>>>>> + freely. */
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +#define _GNU_SOURCE 1
>>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef __ia64__
>>>>>>>>>> +#define ia64_fpreg ia64_fpreg_DISABLE
>>>>>>>>>> +#define pt_all_user_regs pt_all_user_regs_DISABLE
>>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* __ia64__ */
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/ptrace.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef __ia64__
>>>>>>>>>> +#undef ia64_fpreg
>>>>>>>>>> +#undef pt_all_user_regs
>>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* __ia64__ */
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/ptrace.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/types.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/user.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#if defined __i386__ || defined __x86_64__
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/debugreg.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>> I’m not sure why you have all the x86 and IA64 checks.
>>> The test will only be executed on AArch64 (because of the checks in the .exp file).
>>> Could you remove all of those checks please.
>> The test case is likely to have been used for other targets as well. I've removed
>> all non-aarch64 code and unused header files.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <assert.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <unistd.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/wait.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <stdio.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <stdlib.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <stddef.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <errno.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <sys/uio.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <elf.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <error.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static __attribute__((unused)) pid_t child;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static __attribute__((unused)) void
>>> Why are these marked as "static __attribute__((unused))â€ ?
>> It instructs GCC not to produce a warning if the function is unused.
> Now that you have removed the x86/ia64 code, you should be able to
> remove the static attribute too.
>
>>>>>>>>>> +cleanup (void)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + if (child > 0)
>>>>>>>>>> + kill (child, SIGKILL);
>>>>>>>>>> + child = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static __attribute__((unused)) void
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +handler_fail (int signo)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + cleanup ();
>>>>>>>>>> + signal (signo, SIG_DFL);
>>>>>>>>>> + raise (signo);
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef __aarch64__
>>> Again, as before, you shouldn’t need this check. If the test is only run
>>> on AArch64 then it isn’t needed.
>> Done.
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +#define SET_WATCHPOINT set_watchpoint
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +/* Macros to extract fields from the hardware debug information word. */
>>>>>>>>>> +#define AARCH64_DEBUG_NUM_SLOTS(x) ((x) & 0xff)
>>>>>>>>>> +#define AARCH64_DEBUG_ARCH(x) (((x) >> 8) & 0xff)
>>>>>>>>>> +/* Macro for the expected version of the ARMv8-A debug architecture. */
>>>>>>>>>> +#define AARCH64_DEBUG_ARCH_V8 0x6
>>>>>>>>>> +#define DR_CONTROL_ENABLED(ctrl) (((ctrl) & 0x1) == 1)
>>>>>>>>>> +#define DR_CONTROL_LENGTH(ctrl) (((ctrl) >> 5) & 0xff)
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>>>>>> +set_watchpoint (pid_t pid, volatile void *addr, unsigned len_mask)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + struct user_hwdebug_state dreg_state;
>>>>>>>>>> + struct iovec iov;
>>>>>>>>>> + long l;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (len_mask >= 0x01);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (len_mask <= 0xff);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + iov.iov_base = &dreg_state;
>>>>>>>>>> + iov.iov_len = sizeof (dreg_state);
>>>>>>>>>> + errno = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> + l = ptrace (PTRACE_GETREGSET, pid, NT_ARM_HW_WATCH, &iov);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (l == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (AARCH64_DEBUG_ARCH (dreg_state.dbg_info) == AARCH64_DEBUG_ARCH_V8);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (AARCH64_DEBUG_NUM_SLOTS (dreg_state.dbg_info) >= 1);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (!DR_CONTROL_ENABLED (dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl));
>>>>>>>>>> + dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl |= 1;
>>>>>>>>>> + assert ( DR_CONTROL_ENABLED (dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl));
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (DR_CONTROL_LENGTH (dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl) == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl |= len_mask << 5;
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (DR_CONTROL_LENGTH (dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl) == len_mask);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl |= 2 << 3; // write
>>>>>>>>>> + dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl |= 2 << 1; // GDB: ???: enabled at el0
>>>>>>>>>> + //printf("ctrl=0x%x\n",dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].ctrl);
>>> Remove the commented out code.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + dreg_state.dbg_regs[0].addr = (uintptr_t) addr;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + iov.iov_base = &dreg_state;
>>>>>>>>>> + iov.iov_len = (offsetof (struct user_hwdebug_state, dbg_regs)
>>>>>>>>>> + + sizeof (dreg_state.dbg_regs[0]));
>>>>>>>>>> + errno = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> + l = ptrace (PTRACE_SETREGSET, pid, NT_ARM_HW_WATCH, &iov);
>>>>>>>>>> + if (errno != 0)
>>>>>>>>>> + error (1, errno, "PTRACE_SETREGSET: NT_ARM_HW_WATCH");
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (l == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef SET_WATCHPOINT
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +int
>>>>>>>>>> +main (void)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + return 77;
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +#else
>>> Having the executable exit with error on not AArch64 is not useful.
>>> Again, this can be cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +static volatile long long check;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +int
>>>>>>>>>> +main (void)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + pid_t got_pid;
>>>>>>>>>> + int i, status;
>>>>>>>>>> + long l;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + atexit (cleanup);
>>>>>>>>>> + signal (SIGABRT, handler_fail);
>>>>>>>>>> + signal (SIGINT, handler_fail);
>>> I’m not sure on the point of the handler_fail?
>>> Would the test be simpler without them?
>> Yes, and the function is removed.
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + child = fork ();
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (child >= 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + if (child == 0)
>>>>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>>>>> + l = ptrace (PTRACE_TRACEME, 0, NULL, NULL);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (l == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + i = raise (SIGUSR1);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (i == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + check = -1;
>>>>>>>>>> + i = raise (SIGUSR2);
>>>>>>>>>> + /* NOTREACHED */
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (0);
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + got_pid = waitpid (child, &status, 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (got_pid == child);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (WIFSTOPPED (status));
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGUSR1);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + // PASS:
>>>>>>>>>> + //SET_WATCHPOINT (child, &check, 0xff);
>>>>>>>>>> + // FAIL:
>>> Remove the commented out code.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + SET_WATCHPOINT (child, &check, 0x02);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + errno = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> + l = ptrace (PTRACE_CONT, child, 0l, 0l);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert_perror (errno);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (l == 0);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + got_pid = waitpid (child, &status, 0);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (got_pid == child);
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (WIFSTOPPED (status));
>>>>>>>>>> + if (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGUSR2)
>>>>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>>>>> + /* We missed the watchpoint - unsupported by hardware? */
>>>>>>>>>> + cleanup ();
>>>>>>>>>> + return 2;
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> + assert (WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGTRAP);
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>> It’s not immediately clear to me what is going on above.
>>> A few comments are probably needed to make it clear:
>>> *Add a watchpoint to check.
>>> *Restart the child. It will write to check.
>>> *Check child has stopped on the watchpoint.
> Could you add some comments to the C file please.
>
>
>> <0001-Adding-a-test-case.patch>
> Attached patch looks ok.
> Happy for you to push if you make the two changes above.

Made these two changes and pushed. Thanks.

>
>
> Thanks,
> Alan.
>
>