Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757560AbcCaQd1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:33:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:33153 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753118AbcCaQd0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:33:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160331160052.GA26393@leverpostej> References: <57cb1b66d85b85eadea28ef3304a62b1327ded45.1459432254.git.glider@google.com> <20160331142908.GG26532@leverpostej> <20160331160052.GA26393@leverpostej> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:33:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 From: Alexander Potapenko To: Mark Rutland Cc: Dmitriy Vyukov , catalin.marinas@arm.com, quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com, will.deacon@arm.com, Kostya Serebryany , Andrew Morton , syzkaller@googlegroups.com, LKML , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ard Biesheuvel , marc.zyngier@arm.com, Christoffer Dall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4206 Lines: 108 On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:09:29PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 03:54:45PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> >> Add ARCH_HAS_KCOV to ARM64 config. Disable instrumentation of >> >> arch/arm64/lib/delay.c >> > >> > Why do we disable instrumentation of delay.c? >> The main purpose of kcov is collecting coverage from syscalls. As far >> as I understand, coverage of functions from delay.c doesn't >> deterministically depend on the syscalls being called and their >> arguments. >> The initial kcov implementation >> (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/5c9a8750a6409c63a0f01d51a9024861022f6593) >> disabled instrumentation of arch/x86/lib/delay.c, so I just copied >> that chunk. >> >> > What exactly does kcov instrumentation imply? Does it require certain >> > data to be mapped or certain functions to be callable while instrumented >> > functions are called? >> Yes, there is __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc() that must be callable. > > That will definitely be a problem for the KVM code which is run at a > different exception level with a different memory map. For GCOV, KASAN, > and UBSAN we simply disable instrumentation of that code [1]. > > We should be able to do similarly for KCOV. Ok, I'll send out the updated patch. >> At boot time |current->kcov_mode| zero, so it virtually does nothing. >> >> Currently kcov instrumentation is disabled for the following files: > >> arch/x86/boot/* >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/* >> arch/x86/entry/vdso/* >> arch/x86/realmode/rm/* > > These are executed outside of the usual kernel context / address space, > so excluding these makes sense to me. > >> arch/x86/kernel/* >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/* >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c >> arch/x86/lib/delay.c >> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > For these, it's not immediately clear to me why instrumentation is > disabled, so I don't know whether or not we can instrument the analogous > arm64 code. According to the comments in https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/5c9a8750a6409c63a0f01d51a9024861022f6593, instrumentation of arch/x86/kernel/apic/* and arch/x86/lib/delay.c leads to non-deterministic coverage, instrumenting others prevent the kernel from booting. >> Only a handful of the above have corresponding files in arch/arm64: >> arch/arm64/boot/* >> arch/arm64/kernel/* >> arch/arm64/lib/delay.c > > We have arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c, and a couple of other files that > are directly analogous, even if the paths don't quite line up. Ok, it makes sense to also disable arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c then. >> My patch explicitly disables instrumentation for arch/arm64/lib/delay.c. >> I never had problems with arch/arm64/boot/* and arch/arm64/kernel/* in >> the 3.18 kernel, although instrumentation of the corresponding x86 >> code is claimed to cause boot-time hangs. >> We can act conservatively and still disable instrumentation for these >> two dirs just to make sure nothing breaks in the future. > > I'd rather that we understood why instrumentation of the above is > disabled, such that we can make a sensible decision from the outset. > >> > We have some C code that is run outside of the normal kernel context >> > (e.g. EFI stub, KVM hyp code), and I suspect it may be necessary to >> > disable instrumentation for those also. >> EFI stub and a number of other files is already disabled by the >> initial kcov patch. >> I understand there might be some code specific to ARM64 that I may >> have overlooked, so I'd be grateful if someone could try the patch out >> with the upstream kernel. > > The only such code that I'm immediately aware of is the hyp-context KVM > code, as mentioned above. > > Thanks, > Mark. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/416790.html -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg