Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:43:43 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        acme@kernel.org, svens@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        sumanthk@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Test 73 Sig_trap fails on s390
Message-ID: <20220118124343.GC98966@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20211216151454.752066-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
 <CANpmjNNMWtjcKa961SjEvRbbPXyw5M5SkrXbb3tnyL3_XyniCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <90efb5a9-612a-919e-cf2f-c528692d61e2@huawei.com>
 <20220118091827.GA98966@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
 <CANpmjNMPoU+1b1fKFuYDYwisW2YfjQHxGt5hgLp1tioG7C2jmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNMPoU+1b1fKFuYDYwisW2YfjQHxGt5hgLp1tioG7C2jmg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:40:04PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:

[...]

> > Both Arm and Arm64 platforms cannot support signal handler with
> > breakpoint, please see the details in [1].  So I think we need
> > something like below:
> >
> > static int test__sigtrap(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_unused)
> > {
> >         ...
> >
> >         if (!BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED) {
> >                 pr_debug("Test not supported on this architecture");
> >                 return TEST_SKIP;
> >         }
> >
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> > Since we have defined BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED, I think we can reuse it at
> > here.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157169993406.29376.12473771029179755767.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> 
> Does this limitation also exist for address watchpoints? The sigtrap
> test does not make use of instruction breakpoints, but instead just
> sets up a watchpoint on access to a data address.

Yes, after reading the code, the flow for either instrution breakpoint
or watchpoint both use the single step [1], thus the signal handler will
take the single step execution and lead to the infinite loop.

I am not the best person to answer this question; @Will, could you
confirm for this?  Thanks!

Leo

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c