> On 7/23/20 5:48 PM, Matthew Malcomson wrote: >> + >> +# Test for displaced stepping over the BLR instruction. >> +gdb_test "run" \ >> + "Starting program.*Breakpoint $decimal.*" \ >> + "Run until BLR test start" >> + > > Please don't use "run" directly. Use one of runto, runto_main, > gdb_run_cmd instead. See amd64-disp-step.exp for example. > > If you use "run" directly, then the testcase won't run against > gdbserver. Please make sure this passes cleanly: > > $ make check \ > RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-gdbserver" \ > TESTS="gdb.arch/aarch64-disp-stepping.exp" > Thanks for the suggestion, as it turns out trying to use this meant I noticed a bunch of other things, and I couldn't get this to pass cleanly ... I have now found some existing cases for displaced stepping on AArch64 in insn-reloc.c driven by disp-step-insn-reloc.exp. Hence I've added the BR and BLR testcases there rather than making my own test driver. However, it seems the existing tests already show there are some problems with AArch64 displaced stepping on gdbserver -- it seems there's some problem with ensuring the context is the same when running using `--target_board=native-gdbserver`. I see errors on the existing cbz, tbnz, bcond_true, and bcond_false tests. The bl test fails because of an illegal instruction in the bcond_false test that only gets run when the test is failing (swithing `b.eq 0b` in that function to `b.eq 0f` works for me and I'll make that switch in a different patch). The new BR and BLR tests also fail from what seems to be using the values of the registers as seen by `info registers` which don't appear to be getting updated correctly as the program proceeds. I can see the same problem on the instruction `mov x1, x2` (that the value of x2 used is what GDB prints out with `info registers` rather than the value it should be based on the code. So, the testcase does not pass cleanly with the command you suggested, but I think it's not a problem with the changes I've made. -------- MOV Testcase that fails under gdbserver Putting this function in the insn-reloc.c (and placing it in the test array so it gets called before the program exits from a broken test) demonstrates that displaced stepping doesn't seem to use the correct values from the gdbserver context. static void can_relocate_mov (void) { int ok = 0; asm (" mov x1, #1\n" "set_point15:\n" " mov %[ok], x1\n" : [ok] "=r" (ok) : : "x1"); if (ok == 1) pass(); else fail(); } ------- If Ok could someone apply this for me (I don't have commit rights)? ###### Proposed commit message and patch below Enable displaced stepping over a BR/BLR instruction Displaced stepping over an instruction executes a instruction in a scratch area and then manually fixes up the PC address to leave execution where it would have been if the instruction were in its original location. The BR instruction does not need modification in order to run correctly at a different address, but the displaced step fixup method should not manually adjust the PC since the BR instruction sets that value already. The BLR instruction should also avoid such a fixup, but must also have the link register modified to point to just after the original code location rather than back to the scratch location. This patch adds the above functionality. We add this functionality by modifying aarch64_displaced_step_others rather than by adding a new visitor method to aarch64_insn_visitor. We choose this since it seems that visitor approach is designed specifically for PC relative instructions (which must always be modified when executed in a different location). It seems that the BR and BLR instructions are more like the RET instruction which is already handled specially in aarch64_displaced_step_others. This also means the gdbserver code to relocate an instruction when creating a fast tracepoint does not need to be modified, since nothing special is needed for the BR and BLR instructions there. Regression tests showed nothing untoward on native aarch64. I noticed that the disp-step-insn-reloc.exp test produces quite a few errors when running with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-gdbserver" (bcond_true, cbz, tbnz, bcond_false, blr, br). There are existing errors, and the BLR and BR tests also fail. It seems the context is not preserved properly for displaced stepping(for the Conditional instructions the condition flags are not preserved, and for BLR/BR the general registers are not preserved). The same problem can be observed when using displaced stepping on a `mov %[ok], x1` instruction, so I'm confident this is not a problem with my patch. ------##### Original observed (mis)behaviour before was that displaced stepping over a BR or BLR instruction would not execute the function they called. Most easily seen by putting a breakpoint with a condition on such an instruction and a print statement in the functions they called. When run with the breakpoint enabled the function is not called and "numargs called" is not printed. When run with the breakpoint disabled the function is called and the message is printed. --- GDB Session hw-a20-10:gcc-source [15:57:14] % gdb ../using-blr Reading symbols from ../using-blr...done. (gdb) disassemble blr_call_value Dump of assembler code for function blr_call_value: ... 0x0000000000400560 <+28>: blr x2 ... 0x00000000004005b8 <+116>: ret End of assembler dump. (gdb) break *0x0000000000400560 Breakpoint 1 at 0x400560: file ../using-blr.c, line 22. (gdb) condition 1 10 == 0 (gdb) run Starting program: /home/matmal01/using-blr [Inferior 1 (process 33279) exited with code 012] (gdb) disable 1 (gdb) run Starting program: /home/matmal01/using-blr numargs called [Inferior 1 (process 33289) exited with code 012] (gdb) Test program: ---- using-blr ---- \#include typedef int (foo) (int, int); typedef void (bar) (int, int); struct sls_testclass { foo *x; bar *y; int left; int right; }; __attribute__ ((noinline)) int blr_call_value (struct sls_testclass x) { int retval = x.x(x.left, x.right); if (retval % 10) return 100; return 9; } __attribute__ ((noinline)) int blr_call (struct sls_testclass x) { x.y(x.left, x.right); if (x.left % 10) return 100; return 9; } int numargs (__attribute__ ((unused)) int left, __attribute__ ((unused)) int right) { printf("numargs called\n"); return 10; } void altfunc (__attribute__ ((unused)) int left, __attribute__ ((unused)) int right) { printf("altfunc called\n"); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { struct sls_testclass x = { .x = numargs, .y = altfunc, .left = 1, .right = 2 }; if (argc > 2) { blr_call (x); } else blr_call_value (x); return 10; } ------ gdb/ChangeLog: 2020-08-19 Matthew Malcomson * aarch64-tdep.c (aarch64_displaced_step_others): Account for BLR and BR instructions. * arch/aarch64-insn.h (enum aarch64_opcodes): Add BR opcode. (enum aarch64_masks): New. gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2020-08-19 Matthew Malcomson * gdb.arch/insn-reloc.c: Add tests for BR and BLR. ############### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply ############### diff --git a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c index 5e7d0d0b8682af04ce4f01fd999d26c9eb459932..d247108f53bf045a018b2bf85284088563868ae0 100644 --- a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c +++ b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c @@ -2974,15 +2974,22 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_others (const uint32_t insn, struct aarch64_displaced_step_data *dsd = (struct aarch64_displaced_step_data *) data; - aarch64_emit_insn (dsd->insn_buf, insn); - dsd->insn_count = 1; - - if ((insn & 0xfffffc1f) == 0xd65f0000) + uint32_t masked_insn = (insn & CLEAR_Rn_MASK); + if (masked_insn == BLR) { - /* RET */ - dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 0; + /* Emit a BR to the same register and then update LR to the original + address (similar to aarch64_displaced_step_b). */ + aarch64_emit_insn (dsd->insn_buf, insn & 0xffdfffff); + regcache_cooked_write_unsigned (dsd->regs, AARCH64_LR_REGNUM, + data->insn_addr + 4); } else + aarch64_emit_insn (dsd->insn_buf, insn); + dsd->insn_count = 1; + + if (masked_insn == RET || masked_insn == BR || masked_insn == BLR) + dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 0; + else dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 4; } diff --git a/gdb/arch/aarch64-insn.h b/gdb/arch/aarch64-insn.h index 6a63ce9c2005acd6fe018a12c640f1be01751d6b..f261363feefe4e93e155434ba6d3df8e4b994c9f 100644 --- a/gdb/arch/aarch64-insn.h +++ b/gdb/arch/aarch64-insn.h @@ -40,7 +40,9 @@ enum aarch64_opcodes CBNZ = 0x21000000 | B, TBZ = 0x36000000 | B, TBNZ = 0x37000000 | B, + /* BR 1101 0110 0001 1111 0000 00rr rrr0 0000 */ /* BLR 1101 0110 0011 1111 0000 00rr rrr0 0000 */ + BR = 0xd61f0000, BLR = 0xd63f0000, /* RET 1101 0110 0101 1111 0000 00rr rrr0 0000 */ RET = 0xd65f0000, @@ -107,6 +109,14 @@ enum aarch64_opcodes NOP = (0 << 5) | HINT, }; +/* List of useful masks. */ +enum aarch64_masks +{ + /* Used for masking out an Rn argument from an opcode. */ + CLEAR_Rn_MASK = 0xfffffc1f, +}; + + /* Representation of a general purpose register of the form xN or wN. This type is used by emitting functions that take registers as operands. */ diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/insn-reloc.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/insn-reloc.c index 106fd6ed1e8cb146863ff767130a82814ee89f86..9e7cf7a12df387e85881e19bdef7372046ba2861 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/insn-reloc.c +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/insn-reloc.c @@ -512,6 +512,99 @@ can_relocate_bl (void) : : : "x30"); /* Test that LR is updated correctly. */ } +/* Make sure we can relocate a BR instruction. + + ... Set x0 to target + set_point12: + BR x0 ; jump to target (tracepoint here). + MOV %[ok], #0 + B end + target: + MOV %[ok], #1 + end + + */ + +static void +can_relocate_br (void) +{ + int ok = 0; + + asm (" movz x0, :abs_g3:0f\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g2_nc:0f\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g1_nc:0f\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g0_nc:0f\n" + "set_point12:\n" + " br x0\n" + " mov %[ok], #0\n" + " b 1f\n" + "0:\n" + " mov %[ok], #1\n" + "1:\n" + : [ok] "=r" (ok) + : + : "0"); + + if (ok == 1) + pass (); + else + fail (); +} + +/* Make sure we can relocate a BLR instruction. + + We use two different functions since the test runner expects one breakpoint + per function and we want to test two different things. + For BLR we want to test that the BLR actually jumps to the relevant + function, *and* that it sets the LR register correctly. + + Hence we create one testcase that jumps to `pass` using BLR, and one + testcase that jumps to `pass` if BLR has set the LR correctly. + + -- can_relocate_blr_jumps + ... Set x0 to pass + set_point13: + BLR x0 ; jump to pass (tracepoint here). + + -- can_relocate_blr_sets_lr + ... Set x0 to foo + set_point14: + BLR x0 ; jumps somewhere else (tracepoint here). + BL pass ; ensures the LR was set correctly by the BLR. + + */ + +static void +can_relocate_blr_jumps (void) +{ + int ok = 0; + + /* Test BLR indeed jumps to the target. */ + asm (" movz x0, :abs_g3:pass\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g2_nc:pass\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g1_nc:pass\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g0_nc:pass\n" + "set_point13:\n" + " blr x0\n" + : : : "x0","x30"); +} + +static void +can_relocate_blr_sets_lr (void) +{ + int ok = 0; + + /* Test BLR sets the LR correctly. */ + asm (" movz x0, :abs_g3:foo\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g2_nc:foo\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g1_nc:foo\n" + " movk x0, :abs_g0_nc:foo\n" + "set_point14:\n" + " blr x0\n" + " bl pass\n" + : : : "x0","x30"); +} + #endif /* Functions testing relocations need to be placed here. GDB will read @@ -536,6 +629,9 @@ static testcase_ftype testcases[] = { can_relocate_ldr, can_relocate_bcond_false, can_relocate_bl, + can_relocate_br, + can_relocate_blr_jumps, + can_relocate_blr_sets_lr, #endif };