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 v2 13/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Prepare handler to handle
 more than one watcnhpoint
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        mikey@neuling.org
Cc:     apopple@linux.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        jolsa@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200401061309.92442-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200401061309.92442-14-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <6b89991b-481a-8cbd-b5b7-559e5e16cf92@c-s.fr>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:50:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200401061309.92442-14-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Le 01/04/2020 à 08:13, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> Currently we assume that we have only one watchpoint supported by hw.
> Get rid of that assumption and use dynamic loop instead. This should
> make supporting more watchpoints very easy.
> 
> With more than one watchpoint, exception handler need to know which
> DAWR caused the exception, and hw currently does not provide it. So
> we need sw logic for the same. To figure out which DAWR caused the
> exception, check all different combinations of user specified range,
> dawr address range, actual access range and dawrx constrains. For ex,
> if user specified range and actual access range overlaps but dawrx is
> configured for readonly watchpoint and the instruction is store, this
> DAWR must not have caused exception.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/processor.h |   2 +-
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/sstep.h     |   2 +
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c  | 396 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c        |   3 -
>   4 files changed, 313 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
> 

[...]

> -static bool
> -dar_range_overlaps(unsigned long dar, int size, struct arch_hw_breakpoint *info)
> +static bool dar_user_range_overlaps(unsigned long dar, int size,
> +				    struct arch_hw_breakpoint *info)
>   {
>   	return ((dar <= info->address + info->len - 1) &&
>   		(dar + size - 1 >= info->address));
>   }

Here and several other places, I think it would be more clear if you 
could avoid the - 1 :

	return ((dar < info->address + info->len) &&
		(dar + size > info->address));


>   
> +static bool dar_in_hw_range(unsigned long dar, struct arch_hw_breakpoint *info)
> +{
> +	unsigned long hw_start_addr, hw_end_addr;
> +
> +	hw_start_addr = ALIGN_DOWN(info->address, HW_BREAKPOINT_SIZE);
> +	hw_end_addr = ALIGN(info->address + info->len, HW_BREAKPOINT_SIZE) - 1;
> +
> +	return ((hw_start_addr <= dar) && (hw_end_addr >= dar));
> +}

	hw_end_addr = ALIGN(info->address + info->len, HW_BREAKPOINT_SIZE);

	return ((hw_start_addr <= dar) && (hw_end_addr > dar));

Christophe

> +
> +static bool dar_hw_range_overlaps(unsigned long dar, int size,
> +				  struct arch_hw_breakpoint *info)
> +{
> +	unsigned long hw_start_addr, hw_end_addr;
> +
> +	hw_start_addr = ALIGN_DOWN(info->address, HW_BREAKPOINT_SIZE);
> +	hw_end_addr = ALIGN(info->address + info->len, HW_BREAKPOINT_SIZE) - 1;
> +
> +	return ((dar <= hw_end_addr) && (dar + size - 1 >= hw_start_addr));
> +}

Same

Christophe