From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com>,
Terry.Guo@arm.com, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>,
"lgustavo@codesourcery.com" <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>,
yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
"gareth@blacksphere.co.nz >> Gareth,
McMullin" <gareth@blacksphere.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] arm-tdep.c: Do not single-step after hitting a watchpoint
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_0C+UqGwM39A4EQCQLg59fNbJ2du8rhrt++Q-pdE9rgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I have been trying to understand the various contributions, and
> I admit I am still not quite sure...
>
> Does it look like the patch I proposed is correct? It seems to be
> supported by Terry Guo's experiments as well...
Note that the ARMv7 architecture allows watchpoints to
be implemented as *asynchronous*, in which case what
you will see is that you take a watchpoint exception
but it may not fire until after the instruction that
triggers the watchpoint and possibly several following
instructions have all finished execution. This may be
what you are seeing in your hardware tests.
For *synchronous* watchpoints, the behaviour is that the
CPU stops *before* execution of the instruction which
triggers the fault, and the memory access does not take
place. This is pretty clearly described in the ARM ARM
(see DDI0406C.c section C3.4.4 "Synchronous and asynchronous
Watchpoint debug events" and the referenced "Effects of
data-aborted instructions" section).
For ARMv8 (so including all AArch64 CPUs) watchpoints must
be synchronous.
QEMU's built in gdbstub was incorrectly not implementing
synchronous watchpoints (ie it was halting after the
execution of the offending insn, not before). This is fixed
by the QEMU patch referenced earlier, and with that patch
QEMU and GDB interoperate correctly (on ARM and also on
other architectures which have the "stop before insn"
watchpoint semantics).
GDB should continue to set have_nonsteppable_watchpoint
for ARM architectures, indicating:
* watchpoints fire before the insn executes
* you need to disable the watchpoint to successfully
singlestep the insn
as this is correct for synchronous watchpoints.
If you have h/w with asynchronous watchpoints then there
really isn't much you can do about stopping in the
right place. Ideally I guess gdb would not do a step
in that case, but I don't think it has access to
enough info about the target CPU to know this (the
kernel does get this info in the DBGDSCR.MOE register
field, which is different for synchronous and
asynchronous watchpoint events).
thanks
-- PMM
next reply other threads:[~2014-09-29 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-29 18:23 Peter Maydell [this message]
2014-09-29 22:15 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-29 22:54 ` Peter Maydell
2014-09-30 9:08 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 9:18 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-30 10:07 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 10:18 ` Peter Maydell
2014-09-30 10:38 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 10:01 ` Peter Maydell
2014-09-30 10:34 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 12:54 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 13:50 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-09-30 14:11 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 14:26 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-09-30 14:50 ` Peter Maydell
2014-09-30 8:57 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-30 9:04 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-30 9:14 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 9:24 ` Will Deacon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-09-15 13:01 Joel Brobecker
2014-09-16 11:12 ` Yao Qi
2014-09-16 11:59 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-09-16 12:05 ` Luis Machado
2014-09-16 12:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-09-16 13:09 ` Luis Machado
2014-09-16 15:21 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-18 11:40 ` Marcus Shawcroft
2014-09-19 17:31 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-29 17:51 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-09-29 17:57 ` Luis Machado
2014-09-29 21:04 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 8:54 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFEAcA_0C+UqGwM39A4EQCQLg59fNbJ2du8rhrt++Q-pdE9rgQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com \
--cc=Terry.Guo@arm.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gareth@blacksphere.co.nz \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
--cc=marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com \
--cc=yao@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox