Message-ID: <1414141323.1441.1.camel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] ARM: kprobes: enable OPTPROBES for ARM 32.
From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
        will.deacon@arm.com, dave.long@linaro.org, taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:02:03 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5449A2BB.1020207@hitachi.com>
References: <1413977525-51480-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
	 <5449A2BB.1020207@hitachi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 09:52 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/10/22 20:31), Wang Nan wrote:
> > Previous 5 version of ARM OPTPROBES patches are unable to deal with
> > stack storing instructions correctly. V5 patches disallow optimizing
> > every protential stack store instructions based on pessimistic
> > assumption. Which, as Tixy comments, 'excludes the main use of
> > kprobes'. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/29/117 )
> > 
> > The main obstacle which prevents us from computing stack requirement is
> > the missing of per-instruction decoder in probes_decode_insn() and its
> > friends. Only part of instructions have their decoders (and not in
> > each case).
> > 
> > In this patch series, I propose 'checker', which allows us define
> > functions for each type of instruction, extract more information.  Stack
> > consumption computing is an example. Checker can be further employed to
> > determine whether one instruction is possible to execute directy in
> > optimized kprobe. I'd like to expand current checker framework by
> > chaining checkers together. After that, I believe most of ARM
> > instructions can be executed directly like x86, kprobe performace can be
> > improved.
> > 
> > The first 3 patches introduces checker. After that, patch 4/7 checks
> > stack requirement for probed instructions. Patches 5/7 - 7/7 are similar
> > to patch v5, except:
> > 
> >  1. As Tixy proposed, unoptimized probes are also suffer from stack
> >     problem (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/1/548 ). Commit d30a0c8b saves
> >     64 bytes for them, but for instruction use register addressing (like
> >     'str r0, [sp, r1]'), 64 bytes are unsafe. Patch 5/7 prohibit such
> >     probing according to stack information collected by checker.
> 
> By the way, this sounds like a bugfix rather than an improvement.
> Is it possible to separate 1/7-5/7 as a bugfix series? I think those
> should go to 3.18.

I believe that problem has existed since kprobes was first implemented
on ARM 7 years ago, and the problematic instruction type doesn't appear
to get generated by GCC so, in my opinion, I don't think there is any
particular urgency to fix this as a bug in the current and, by
implication, stable kernels.

-- 
Tixy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/