Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] Powerpc64/Watchpoint: Don't ignore extraneous
 exceptions
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc:     mpe@ellerman.id.au, mikey@neuling.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20190710045445.31037-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190710045445.31037-3-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <1f3fd425-3d2f-8d18-eff1-01ca5b605ba0@c-s.fr>
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:08:36 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1f3fd425-3d2f-8d18-eff1-01ca5b605ba0@c-s.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <a49ccbd5-8109-b46e-66a3-c8deda841490@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 7/10/19 11:57 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 10/07/2019 à 06:54, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> On Powerpc64, watchpoint match range is double-word granular. On
>> a watchpoint hit, DAR is set to the first byte of overlap between
>> actual access and watched range. And thus it's quite possible that
>> DAR does not point inside user specified range. Ex, say user creates
>> a watchpoint with address range 0x1004 to 0x1007. So hw would be
>> configured to watch from 0x1000 to 0x1007. If there is a 4 byte
>> access from 0x1002 to 0x1005, DAR will point to 0x1002 and thus
>> interrupt handler considers it as extraneous, but it's actually not,
>> because part of the access belongs to what user has asked. So, let
>> kernel pass it on to user and let user decide what to do with it
>> instead of silently ignoring it. The drawback is, it can generate
>> false positive events.
> 
> Why adding some #ifdefs based on CONFIG_8xx ?

I don't know how 8xx behaves so I'm keeping the current behavior(ignore
extraneous exception) for 8xx.

> 
> I see your commit log mentions 'Powerpc64'. What about BOOK3S/32 ?

Hmm, I should not have mention 64 there. Yes, the change should cover both
Books3S/64 and Book3S/32.