[ 088/135] ARM: 7496/1: hw_breakpoint: dont rely on dfsr to show watchpointaccess type

[Ben Hutchings]

3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

commit bf8801145c01ab600f8df66e8c879ac642fa5846 upstream.

>From ARM debug architecture v7.1 onwards, a watchpoint exception causes
the DFAR to be updated with the faulting data address. However, DFSR.WnR
takes an UNKNOWN value and therefore cannot be used in general to
determine the access type that triggered the watchpoint.

This patch forbids watchpoints without an overflow handler from
specifying a specific access type (load/store). Those with overflow
handlers must be able to handle false positives potentially triggered by
a watchpoint of a different access type on the same address. For
SIGTRAP-based handlers (i.e. ptrace), this should have no impact.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c |   55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
index ba386bd..18d39ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
@@ -159,6 +159,12 @@ static int debug_arch_supported(void)
 		arch >= ARM_DEBUG_ARCH_V7_1;
 }
 
+/* Can we determine the watchpoint access type from the fsr? */
+static int debug_exception_updates_fsr(void)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /* Determine number of WRP registers available. */
 static int get_num_wrp_resources(void)
 {
@@ -619,18 +625,35 @@ int arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(struct perf_event *bp)
 	info->address &= ~alignment_mask;
 	info->ctrl.len <<= offset;
 
-	/*
-	 * Currently we rely on an overflow handler to take
-	 * care of single-stepping the breakpoint when it fires.
-	 * In the case of userspace breakpoints on a core with V7 debug,
-	 * we can use the mismatch feature as a poor-man's hardware
-	 * single-step, but this only works for per-task breakpoints.
-	 */
-	if (!bp->overflow_handler && (arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(bp) ||
-	    !core_has_mismatch_brps() || !bp->hw.bp_target)) {
-		pr_warning("overflow handler required but none found\n");
-		ret = -EINVAL;
+	if (!bp->overflow_handler) {
+		/*
+		 * Mismatch breakpoints are required for single-stepping
+		 * breakpoints.
+		 */
+		if (!core_has_mismatch_brps())
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/* We don't allow mismatch breakpoints in kernel space. */
+		if (arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(bp))
+			return -EPERM;
+
+		/*
+		 * Per-cpu breakpoints are not supported by our stepping
+		 * mechanism.
+		 */
+		if (!bp->hw.bp_target)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/*
+		 * We only support specific access types if the fsr
+		 * reports them.
+		 */
+		if (!debug_exception_updates_fsr() &&
+		    (info->ctrl.type == ARM_BREAKPOINT_LOAD ||
+		     info->ctrl.type == ARM_BREAKPOINT_STORE))
+			return -EINVAL;
 	}
+
 out:
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -706,10 +729,12 @@ static void watchpoint_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
 				goto unlock;
 
 			/* Check that the access type matches. */
-			access = (fsr & ARM_FSR_ACCESS_MASK) ? HW_BREAKPOINT_W :
-				 HW_BREAKPOINT_R;
-			if (!(access & hw_breakpoint_type(wp)))
-				goto unlock;
+			if (debug_exception_updates_fsr()) {
+				access = (fsr & ARM_FSR_ACCESS_MASK) ?
+					  HW_BREAKPOINT_W : HW_BREAKPOINT_R;
+				if (!(access & hw_breakpoint_type(wp)))
+					goto unlock;
+			}
 
 			/* We have a winner. */
 			info->trigger = addr;


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