1
linux/arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-decode.c

1738 lines
53 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/*
* arch/arm/kernel/kprobes-decode.c
*
* Copyright (C) 2006, 2007 Motorola Inc.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
* General Public License for more details.
*/
/*
* We do not have hardware single-stepping on ARM, This
* effort is further complicated by the ARM not having a
* "next PC" register. Instructions that change the PC
* can't be safely single-stepped in a MP environment, so
* we have a lot of work to do:
*
* In the prepare phase:
* *) If it is an instruction that does anything
* with the CPU mode, we reject it for a kprobe.
* (This is out of laziness rather than need. The
* instructions could be simulated.)
*
* *) Otherwise, decode the instruction rewriting its
* registers to take fixed, ordered registers and
* setting a handler for it to run the instruction.
*
* In the execution phase by an instruction's handler:
*
* *) If the PC is written to by the instruction, the
* instruction must be fully simulated in software.
* If it is a conditional instruction, the handler
* will use insn[0] to copy its condition code to
* set r0 to 1 and insn[1] to "mov pc, lr" to return.
*
* *) Otherwise, a modified form of the instruction is
* directly executed. Its handler calls the
* instruction in insn[0]. In insn[1] is a
* "mov pc, lr" to return.
*
* Before calling, load up the reordered registers
* from the original instruction's registers. If one
* of the original input registers is the PC, compute
* and adjust the appropriate input register.
*
* After call completes, copy the output registers to
* the original instruction's original registers.
*
* We don't use a real breakpoint instruction since that
* would have us in the kernel go from SVC mode to SVC
* mode losing the link register. Instead we use an
* undefined instruction. To simplify processing, the
* undefined instruction used for kprobes must be reserved
* exclusively for kprobes use.
*
* TODO: ifdef out some instruction decoding based on architecture.
*/
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/kprobes.h>
#define sign_extend(x, signbit) ((x) | (0 - ((x) & (1 << (signbit)))))
#define branch_displacement(insn) sign_extend(((insn) & 0xffffff) << 2, 25)
#define is_r15(insn, bitpos) (((insn) & (0xf << bitpos)) == (0xf << bitpos))
/*
* Test if load/store instructions writeback the address register.
* if P (bit 24) == 0 or W (bit 21) == 1
*/
#define is_writeback(insn) ((insn ^ 0x01000000) & 0x01200000)
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
#define PSR_fs (PSR_f|PSR_s)
#define KPROBE_RETURN_INSTRUCTION 0xe1a0f00e /* mov pc, lr */
typedef long (insn_0arg_fn_t)(void);
typedef long (insn_1arg_fn_t)(long);
typedef long (insn_2arg_fn_t)(long, long);
typedef long (insn_3arg_fn_t)(long, long, long);
typedef long (insn_4arg_fn_t)(long, long, long, long);
typedef long long (insn_llret_0arg_fn_t)(void);
typedef long long (insn_llret_3arg_fn_t)(long, long, long);
typedef long long (insn_llret_4arg_fn_t)(long, long, long, long);
union reg_pair {
long long dr;
#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
struct { long r0, r1; };
#else
struct { long r1, r0; };
#endif
};
/*
* For STR and STM instructions, an ARM core may choose to use either
* a +8 or a +12 displacement from the current instruction's address.
* Whichever value is chosen for a given core, it must be the same for
* both instructions and may not change. This function measures it.
*/
static int str_pc_offset;
static void __init find_str_pc_offset(void)
{
int addr, scratch, ret;
__asm__ (
"sub %[ret], pc, #4 \n\t"
"str pc, %[addr] \n\t"
"ldr %[scr], %[addr] \n\t"
"sub %[ret], %[scr], %[ret] \n\t"
: [ret] "=r" (ret), [scr] "=r" (scratch), [addr] "+m" (addr));
str_pc_offset = ret;
}
/*
* The insnslot_?arg_r[w]flags() functions below are to keep the
* msr -> *fn -> mrs instruction sequences indivisible so that
* the state of the CPSR flags aren't inadvertently modified
* just before or just after the call.
*/
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_0arg_rflags(long cpsr, insn_0arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long ret asm("r0");
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret)
: [cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
return ret;
}
static inline long long __kprobes
insnslot_llret_0arg_rflags(long cpsr, insn_llret_0arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long ret0 asm("r0");
register long ret1 asm("r1");
union reg_pair fnr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret0), "=r" (ret1)
: [cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
fnr.r0 = ret0;
fnr.r1 = ret1;
return fnr.dr;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_1arg_rflags(long r0, long cpsr, insn_1arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long ret asm("r0");
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret)
: "0" (rr0), [cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_2arg_rflags(long r0, long r1, long cpsr, insn_2arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long ret asm("r0");
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1),
[cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_3arg_rflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long cpsr, insn_3arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long ret asm("r0");
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2),
[cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
return ret;
}
static inline long long __kprobes
insnslot_llret_3arg_rflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long cpsr,
insn_llret_3arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long ret0 asm("r0");
register long ret1 asm("r1");
union reg_pair fnr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret0), "=r" (ret1)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2),
[cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
fnr.r0 = ret0;
fnr.r1 = ret1;
return fnr.dr;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_4arg_rflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long r3, long cpsr,
insn_4arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long rr3 asm("r3") = r3;
register long ret asm("r0");
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
: "=r" (ret)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2), "r" (rr3),
[cpsr] "r" (cpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_1arg_rwflags(long r0, long *cpsr, insn_1arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long ret asm("r0");
long oldcpsr = *cpsr;
long newcpsr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[oldcpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
"mrs %[newcpsr], cpsr \n\t"
: "=r" (ret), [newcpsr] "=r" (newcpsr)
: "0" (rr0), [oldcpsr] "r" (oldcpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
*cpsr = (oldcpsr & ~PSR_fs) | (newcpsr & PSR_fs);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_2arg_rwflags(long r0, long r1, long *cpsr, insn_2arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long ret asm("r0");
long oldcpsr = *cpsr;
long newcpsr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[oldcpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
"mrs %[newcpsr], cpsr \n\t"
: "=r" (ret), [newcpsr] "=r" (newcpsr)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), [oldcpsr] "r" (oldcpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
*cpsr = (oldcpsr & ~PSR_fs) | (newcpsr & PSR_fs);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_3arg_rwflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long *cpsr,
insn_3arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long ret asm("r0");
long oldcpsr = *cpsr;
long newcpsr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[oldcpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
"mrs %[newcpsr], cpsr \n\t"
: "=r" (ret), [newcpsr] "=r" (newcpsr)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2),
[oldcpsr] "r" (oldcpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
*cpsr = (oldcpsr & ~PSR_fs) | (newcpsr & PSR_fs);
return ret;
}
static inline long __kprobes
insnslot_4arg_rwflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long r3, long *cpsr,
insn_4arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long rr3 asm("r3") = r3;
register long ret asm("r0");
long oldcpsr = *cpsr;
long newcpsr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[oldcpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
"mrs %[newcpsr], cpsr \n\t"
: "=r" (ret), [newcpsr] "=r" (newcpsr)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2), "r" (rr3),
[oldcpsr] "r" (oldcpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
*cpsr = (oldcpsr & ~PSR_fs) | (newcpsr & PSR_fs);
return ret;
}
static inline long long __kprobes
insnslot_llret_4arg_rwflags(long r0, long r1, long r2, long r3, long *cpsr,
insn_llret_4arg_fn_t *fn)
{
register long rr0 asm("r0") = r0;
register long rr1 asm("r1") = r1;
register long rr2 asm("r2") = r2;
register long rr3 asm("r3") = r3;
register long ret0 asm("r0");
register long ret1 asm("r1");
long oldcpsr = *cpsr;
long newcpsr;
union reg_pair fnr;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"msr cpsr_fs, %[oldcpsr] \n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[fn] \n\t"
"mrs %[newcpsr], cpsr \n\t"
: "=r" (ret0), "=r" (ret1), [newcpsr] "=r" (newcpsr)
: "0" (rr0), "r" (rr1), "r" (rr2), "r" (rr3),
[oldcpsr] "r" (oldcpsr), [fn] "r" (fn)
: "lr", "cc"
);
*cpsr = (oldcpsr & ~PSR_fs) | (newcpsr & PSR_fs);
fnr.r0 = ret0;
fnr.r1 = ret1;
return fnr.dr;
}
/*
* To avoid the complications of mimicing single-stepping on a
* processor without a Next-PC or a single-step mode, and to
* avoid having to deal with the side-effects of boosting, we
* simulate or emulate (almost) all ARM instructions.
*
* "Simulation" is where the instruction's behavior is duplicated in
* C code. "Emulation" is where the original instruction is rewritten
* and executed, often by altering its registers.
*
* By having all behavior of the kprobe'd instruction completed before
* returning from the kprobe_handler(), all locks (scheduler and
* interrupt) can safely be released. There is no need for secondary
* breakpoints, no race with MP or preemptable kernels, nor having to
* clean up resources counts at a later time impacting overall system
* performance. By rewriting the instruction, only the minimum registers
* need to be loaded and saved back optimizing performance.
*
* Calling the insnslot_*_rwflags version of a function doesn't hurt
* anything even when the CPSR flags aren't updated by the
* instruction. It's just a little slower in return for saving
* a little space by not having a duplicate function that doesn't
* update the flags. (The same optimization can be said for
* instructions that do or don't perform register writeback)
* Also, instructions can either read the flags, only write the
* flags, or read and write the flags. To save combinations
* rather than for sheer performance, flag functions just assume
* read and write of flags.
*/
static void __kprobes simulate_bbl(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long iaddr = (long)p->addr;
int disp = branch_displacement(insn);
if (insn & (1 << 24))
regs->ARM_lr = iaddr + 4;
regs->ARM_pc = iaddr + 8 + disp;
}
static void __kprobes simulate_blx1(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long iaddr = (long)p->addr;
int disp = branch_displacement(insn);
regs->ARM_lr = iaddr + 4;
regs->ARM_pc = iaddr + 8 + disp + ((insn >> 23) & 0x2);
regs->ARM_cpsr |= PSR_T_BIT;
}
static void __kprobes simulate_blx2bx(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
if (insn & (1 << 5))
regs->ARM_lr = (long)p->addr + 4;
regs->ARM_pc = rmv & ~0x1;
regs->ARM_cpsr &= ~PSR_T_BIT;
if (rmv & 0x1)
regs->ARM_cpsr |= PSR_T_BIT;
}
static void __kprobes simulate_mrs(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
unsigned long mask = 0xf8ff03df; /* Mask out execution state */
regs->uregs[rd] = regs->ARM_cpsr & mask;
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
static void __kprobes simulate_ldm1stm1(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int lbit = insn & (1 << 20);
int wbit = insn & (1 << 21);
int ubit = insn & (1 << 23);
int pbit = insn & (1 << 24);
long *addr = (long *)regs->uregs[rn];
int reg_bit_vector;
int reg_count;
reg_count = 0;
reg_bit_vector = insn & 0xffff;
while (reg_bit_vector) {
reg_bit_vector &= (reg_bit_vector - 1);
++reg_count;
}
if (!ubit)
addr -= reg_count;
addr += (!pbit == !ubit);
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
reg_bit_vector = insn & 0xffff;
while (reg_bit_vector) {
int reg = __ffs(reg_bit_vector);
reg_bit_vector &= (reg_bit_vector - 1);
if (lbit)
regs->uregs[reg] = *addr++;
else
*addr++ = regs->uregs[reg];
}
if (wbit) {
if (!ubit)
addr -= reg_count;
addr -= (!pbit == !ubit);
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
regs->uregs[rn] = (long)addr;
}
}
static void __kprobes simulate_stm1_pc(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
regs->ARM_pc = (long)p->addr + str_pc_offset;
simulate_ldm1stm1(p, regs);
regs->ARM_pc = (long)p->addr + 4;
}
static void __kprobes simulate_mov_ipsp(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
regs->uregs[12] = regs->uregs[13];
}
static void __kprobes emulate_ldcstc(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
/* Save Rn in case of writeback. */
regs->uregs[rn] = insnslot_1arg_rflags(rnv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_ldrd(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_2arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_2arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf; /* rm may be invalid, don't care. */
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* Not following the C calling convention here, so need asm(). */
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"ldr r0, %[rn] \n\t"
"ldr r1, %[rm] \n\t"
"msr cpsr_fs, %[cpsr]\n\t"
"mov lr, pc \n\t"
"mov pc, %[i_fn] \n\t"
"str r0, %[rn] \n\t" /* in case of writeback */
"str r2, %[rd0] \n\t"
"str r3, %[rd1] \n\t"
: [rn] "+m" (rnv),
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
[rd0] "=m" (regs->uregs[rd]),
[rd1] "=m" (regs->uregs[rd+1])
: [rm] "m" (rmv),
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
[cpsr] "r" (regs->ARM_cpsr),
[i_fn] "r" (i_fn)
: "r0", "r1", "r2", "r3", "lr", "cc"
);
if (is_writeback(insn))
regs->uregs[rn] = rnv;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
static void __kprobes emulate_strd(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_4arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_4arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
/* rm/rmv may be invalid, don't care. */
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
long rnv_wb;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
rnv_wb = insnslot_4arg_rflags(rnv, rmv, regs->uregs[rd],
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
regs->uregs[rd+1],
regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
if (is_writeback(insn))
regs->uregs[rn] = rnv_wb;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
static void __kprobes emulate_ldr(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_llret_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_llret_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
union reg_pair fnr;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rdv;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
long cpsr = regs->ARM_cpsr;
fnr.dr = insnslot_llret_3arg_rflags(rnv, 0, rmv, cpsr, i_fn);
if (rn != 15)
regs->uregs[rn] = fnr.r0; /* Save Rn in case of writeback. */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
rdv = fnr.r1;
if (rd == 15) {
#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 5
cpsr &= ~PSR_T_BIT;
if (rdv & 0x1)
cpsr |= PSR_T_BIT;
regs->ARM_cpsr = cpsr;
rdv &= ~0x1;
#else
rdv &= ~0x2;
#endif
}
regs->uregs[rd] = rdv;
}
static void __kprobes emulate_str(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long iaddr = (long)p->addr;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rdv = (rd == 15) ? iaddr + str_pc_offset : regs->uregs[rd];
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? iaddr + 8 : regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm]; /* rm/rmv may be invalid, don't care. */
long rnv_wb;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
rnv_wb = insnslot_3arg_rflags(rnv, rdv, rmv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
if (rn != 15)
regs->uregs[rn] = rnv_wb; /* Save Rn in case of writeback. */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
static void __kprobes emulate_mrrc(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_llret_0arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_llret_0arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
union reg_pair fnr;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
fnr.dr = insnslot_llret_0arg_rflags(regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
regs->uregs[rn] = fnr.r0;
regs->uregs[rd] = fnr.r1;
}
static void __kprobes emulate_mcrr(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_2arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_2arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
long rdv = regs->uregs[rd];
insnslot_2arg_rflags(rnv, rdv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_sat(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
/* Writes Q flag */
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_1arg_rwflags(rmv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_sel(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_2arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_2arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
/* Reads GE bits */
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_2arg_rflags(rnv, rmv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_none(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_0arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_0arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
insnslot_0arg_rflags(regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_rd12(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_0arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_0arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_0arg_rflags(regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_ird12(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int ird = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
insnslot_1arg_rflags(regs->uregs[ird], regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_rn16(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
insnslot_1arg_rflags(rnv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes emulate_rd12rm0(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_1arg_rflags(rmv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_rd12rn16rm0_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_2arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_2arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
regs->uregs[rd] =
insnslot_2arg_rwflags(rnv, rmv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = regs->uregs[rn];
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
regs->uregs[rd] =
insnslot_3arg_rwflags(rnv, rsv, rmv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_rd16rs8rm0_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_2arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_2arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
regs->uregs[rd] =
insnslot_2arg_rwflags(rsv, rmv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_llret_4arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_llret_4arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
union reg_pair fnr;
int rdhi = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rdlo = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf;
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
long rmv = regs->uregs[rm];
fnr.dr = insnslot_llret_4arg_rwflags(regs->uregs[rdhi],
regs->uregs[rdlo], rsv, rmv,
&regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
regs->uregs[rdhi] = fnr.r0;
regs->uregs[rdlo] = fnr.r1;
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_imm_rflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? (long)p->addr + 8 : regs->uregs[rn];
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_1arg_rflags(rnv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_imm_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? (long)p->addr + 8 : regs->uregs[rn];
regs->uregs[rd] = insnslot_1arg_rwflags(rnv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_tests_imm(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_1arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_1arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? (long)p->addr + 8 : regs->uregs[rn];
insnslot_1arg_rwflags(rnv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_rflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf; /* rn/rnv/rs/rsv may be */
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf; /* invalid, don't care. */
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
regs->uregs[rd] =
insnslot_3arg_rflags(rnv, rmv, rsv, regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_rwflags(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
int rd = (insn >> 12) & 0xf;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf; /* rn/rnv/rs/rsv may be */
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf; /* invalid, don't care. */
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
regs->uregs[rd] =
insnslot_3arg_rwflags(rnv, rmv, rsv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
static void __kprobes
emulate_alu_tests(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
insn_3arg_fn_t *i_fn = (insn_3arg_fn_t *)&p->ainsn.insn[0];
kprobe_opcode_t insn = p->opcode;
long ppc = (long)p->addr + 8;
int rn = (insn >> 16) & 0xf;
int rs = (insn >> 8) & 0xf; /* rs/rsv may be invalid, don't care. */
int rm = insn & 0xf;
long rnv = (rn == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rn];
long rmv = (rm == 15) ? ppc : regs->uregs[rm];
long rsv = regs->uregs[rs];
insnslot_3arg_rwflags(rnv, rmv, rsv, &regs->ARM_cpsr, i_fn);
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_ldr_str(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
int not_imm = (insn & (1 << 26)) ? (insn & (1 << 25))
: (~insn & (1 << 22));
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
if (is_writeback(insn) && is_r15(insn, 16))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Writeback to PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff00fff;
insn |= 0x00001000; /* Rn = r0, Rd = r1 */
if (not_imm) {
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= ~0xf;
insn |= 2; /* Rm = r2 */
}
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? emulate_ldr : emulate_str;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_rd12rm0(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xffff0ff0; /* Rd = r0, Rm = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rd12rm0;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_rd12rn16rm0_wflags(kprobe_opcode_t insn,
struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff00ff0; /* Rd = r0, Rn = r0 */
insn |= 0x00000001; /* Rm = r1 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rd12rn16rm0_rwflags;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_rd16rs8rm0_wflags(kprobe_opcode_t insn,
struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
if (is_r15(insn, 16))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff0f0f0; /* Rd = r0, Rs = r0 */
insn |= 0x00000001; /* Rm = r1 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rd16rs8rm0_rwflags;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_wflags(kprobe_opcode_t insn,
struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
if (is_r15(insn, 16))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff000f0; /* Rd = r0, Rn = r0 */
insn |= 0x00000102; /* Rs = r1, Rm = r2 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_rwflags;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
prep_emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_wflags(kprobe_opcode_t insn,
struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
if (is_r15(insn, 16) || is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* RdHi or RdLo is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff000f0; /* RdHi = r0, RdLo = r1 */
insn |= 0x00001203; /* Rs = r2, Rm = r3 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_rwflags;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/*
* For the instruction masking and comparisons in all the "space_*"
* functions below, Do _not_ rearrange the order of tests unless
* you're very, very sure of what you are doing. For the sake of
* efficiency, the masks for some tests sometimes assume other test
* have been done prior to them so the number of patterns to test
* for an instruction set can be as broad as possible to reduce the
* number of tests needed.
*/
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_1111(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* CPS mmod == 1 : 1111 0001 0000 xx10 xxxx xxxx xx0x xxxx */
/* RFE : 1111 100x x0x1 xxxx xxxx 1010 xxxx xxxx */
/* SRS : 1111 100x x1x0 1101 xxxx 0101 xxxx xxxx */
if ((insn & 0xfff30020) == 0xf1020000 ||
(insn & 0xfe500f00) == 0xf8100a00 ||
(insn & 0xfe5f0f00) == 0xf84d0500)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* PLD : 1111 01x1 x101 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : */
if ((insn & 0xfd700000) == 0xf4500000) {
insn &= 0xfff0ffff; /* Rn = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_rn16;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* BLX(1) : 1111 101x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : */
if ((insn & 0xfe000000) == 0xfa000000) {
asi->insn_handler = simulate_blx1;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
}
/* SETEND : 1111 0001 0000 0001 xxxx xxxx 0000 xxxx */
/* CDP2 : 1111 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx0 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0xffff00f0) == 0xf1010000 ||
(insn & 0xff000010) == 0xfe000000) {
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_none;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* MCRR2 : 1111 1100 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : (Rd != Rn) */
/* MRRC2 : 1111 1100 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : (Rd != Rn) */
if ((insn & 0xffe00000) == 0xfc400000) {
insn &= 0xfff00fff; /* Rn = r0 */
insn |= 0x00001000; /* Rd = r1 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler =
(insn & (1 << 20)) ? emulate_mrrc : emulate_mcrr;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* LDC2 : 1111 110x xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STC2 : 1111 110x xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
if ((insn & 0xfe000000) == 0xfc000000) {
insn &= 0xfff0ffff; /* Rn = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_ldcstc;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* MCR2 : 1111 1110 xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx1 xxxx */
/* MRC2 : 1111 1110 xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx1 xxxx */
insn &= 0xffff0fff; /* Rd = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? emulate_rd12 : emulate_ird12;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_000x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* cccc 0001 0xx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx0 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0f900010) == 0x01000000) {
/* BXJ : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0010 xxxx */
/* MSR : cccc 0001 0x10 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0000 xxxx */
/* MRS spsr : cccc 0001 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0000 xxxx */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x01200020 ||
(insn & 0x0fb000f0) == 0x01200000 ||
(insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x01400000)
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* MRS cpsr : cccc 0001 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0000 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x01000000) {
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
asi->insn_handler = simulate_mrs;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* SMLALxy : cccc 0001 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1xx0 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff00090) == 0x01400080)
return prep_emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
/* SMULWy : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1x10 xxxx */
/* SMULxy : cccc 0001 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1xx0 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000b0) == 0x012000a0 ||
(insn & 0x0ff00090) == 0x01600080)
return prep_emulate_rd16rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
/* SMLAxy : cccc 0001 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1xx0 xxxx : Q */
/* SMLAWy : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1x00 xxxx : Q */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
}
/* cccc 0001 0xx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0xx1 xxxx */
else if ((insn & 0x0f900090) == 0x01000010) {
/* BKPT : 1110 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0xfff000f0) == 0xe1200070)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* BLX(2) : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx */
/* BX : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000d0) == 0x01200010) {
if ((insn & 0x0ff000ff) == 0x0120003f)
return INSN_REJECTED; /* BLX pc */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
asi->insn_handler = simulate_blx2bx;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
/* CLZ : cccc 0001 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x01600010)
return prep_emulate_rd12rm0(insn, asi);
/* QADD : cccc 0001 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :Q */
/* QSUB : cccc 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :Q */
/* QDADD : cccc 0001 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :Q */
/* QDSUB : cccc 0001 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :Q */
return prep_emulate_rd12rn16rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
}
/* cccc 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
else if ((insn & 0x0f0000f0) == 0x00000090) {
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* MUL : cccc 0000 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* MULS : cccc 0000 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
/* MLA : cccc 0000 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* MLAS : cccc 0000 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
/* UMAAL : cccc 0000 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* undef : cccc 0000 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* MLS : cccc 0000 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* undef : cccc 0000 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* UMULL : cccc 0000 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* UMULLS : cccc 0000 1001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
/* UMLAL : cccc 0000 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* UMLALS : cccc 0000 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
/* SMULL : cccc 0000 1100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* SMULLS : cccc 0000 1101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
/* SMLAL : cccc 0000 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* SMLALS : cccc 0000 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :cc */
if ((insn & 0x00d00000) == 0x00500000) {
return INSN_REJECTED;
} else if ((insn & 0x00e00000) == 0x00000000) {
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_rd16rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x00a00000) == 0x00200000) {
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
} else {
return prep_emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
}
}
/* cccc 000x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1xx1 xxxx */
else if ((insn & 0x0e000090) == 0x00000090) {
/* SWP : cccc 0001 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* SWPB : cccc 0001 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* ??? : cccc 0001 0x01 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* ??? : cccc 0001 0x10 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* ??? : cccc 0001 0x11 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* STREX : cccc 0001 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* LDREX : cccc 0001 1001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* STREXD: cccc 0001 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* LDREXD: cccc 0001 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* STREXB: cccc 0001 1100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* LDREXB: cccc 0001 1101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* STREXH: cccc 0001 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* LDREXH: cccc 0001 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx */
/* LDRD : cccc 000x xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx */
/* STRD : cccc 000x xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* LDRH : cccc 000x xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1011 xxxx */
/* STRH : cccc 000x xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1011 xxxx */
/* LDRSB : cccc 000x xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1101 xxxx */
/* LDRSH : cccc 000x xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0f0000f0) == 0x01000090) {
if ((insn & 0x0fb000f0) == 0x01000090) {
/* SWP/SWPB */
return prep_emulate_rd12rn16rm0_wflags(insn,
asi);
} else {
/* STREX/LDREX variants and unallocaed space */
return INSN_REJECTED;
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
} else if ((insn & 0x0e1000d0) == 0x00000d0) {
/* STRD/LDRD */
if ((insn & 0x0000e000) == 0x0000e000)
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is LR or PC */
if (is_writeback(insn) && is_r15(insn, 16))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Writeback to PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff00fff;
insn |= 0x00002000; /* Rn = r0, Rd = r2 */
if (!(insn & (1 << 22))) {
/* Register index */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= ~0xf;
insn |= 1; /* Rm = r1 */
}
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler =
(insn & (1 << 5)) ? emulate_strd : emulate_ldrd;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* LDRH/STRH/LDRSB/LDRSH */
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_ldr_str(insn, asi);
}
/* cccc 000x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/*
* ALU op with S bit and Rd == 15 :
* cccc 000x xxx1 xxxx 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx
*/
if ((insn & 0x0e10f000) == 0x0010f000)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/*
* "mov ip, sp" is the most common kprobe'd instruction by far.
* Check and optimize for it explicitly.
*/
if (insn == 0xe1a0c00d) {
asi->insn_handler = simulate_mov_ipsp;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
}
/*
* Data processing: Immediate-shift / Register-shift
* ALU op : cccc 000x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* CPY : cccc 0001 1010 xxxx xxxx 0000 0000 xxxx
* MOV : cccc 0001 101x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* *S (bit 20) updates condition codes
* ADC/SBC/RSC reads the C flag
*/
insn &= 0xfff00ff0; /* Rn = r0, Rd = r0 */
insn |= 0x00000001; /* Rm = r1 */
if (insn & 0x010) {
insn &= 0xfffff0ff; /* register shift */
insn |= 0x00000200; /* Rs = r2 */
}
asi->insn[0] = insn;
if ((insn & 0x0f900000) == 0x01100000) {
/*
* TST : cccc 0001 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* TEQ : cccc 0001 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* CMP : cccc 0001 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* CMN : cccc 0001 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
*/
asi->insn_handler = emulate_alu_tests;
} else {
/* ALU ops which write to Rd */
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? /* S-bit */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
emulate_alu_rwflags : emulate_alu_rflags;
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_001x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/*
* MSR : cccc 0011 0x10 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* Undef : cccc 0011 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
* ALU op with S bit and Rd == 15 :
* cccc 001x xxx1 xxxx 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx
*/
if ((insn & 0x0fb00000) == 0x03200000 || /* MSR */
(insn & 0x0ff00000) == 0x03400000 || /* Undef */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
(insn & 0x0e10f000) == 0x0210f000) /* ALU s-bit, R15 */
return INSN_REJECTED;
/*
* Data processing: 32-bit Immediate
* ALU op : cccc 001x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* MOV : cccc 0011 101x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* *S (bit 20) updates condition codes
* ADC/SBC/RSC reads the C flag
*/
insn &= 0xfff00fff; /* Rn = r0 and Rd = r0 */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
asi->insn[0] = insn;
if ((insn & 0x0f900000) == 0x03100000) {
/*
* TST : cccc 0011 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* TEQ : cccc 0011 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* CMP : cccc 0011 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
* CMN : cccc 0011 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
*/
asi->insn_handler = emulate_alu_tests_imm;
} else {
/* ALU ops which write to Rd */
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? /* S-bit */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
emulate_alu_imm_rwflags : emulate_alu_imm_rflags;
}
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_0110__1(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* SEL : cccc 0110 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1011 xxxx GE: !!! */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x068000b0) {
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff00ff0; /* Rd = r0, Rn = r0 */
insn |= 0x00000001; /* Rm = r1 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_sel;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* SSAT : cccc 0110 101x xxxx xxxx xxxx xx01 xxxx :Q */
/* USAT : cccc 0110 111x xxxx xxxx xxxx xx01 xxxx :Q */
/* SSAT16 : cccc 0110 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx :Q */
/* USAT16 : cccc 0110 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx :Q */
if ((insn & 0x0fa00030) == 0x06a00010 ||
(insn & 0x0fb000f0) == 0x06a00030) {
if (is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xffff0ff0; /* Rd = r0, Rm = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_sat;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* REV : cccc 0110 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx */
/* REV16 : cccc 0110 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1011 xxxx */
/* RBIT : cccc 0110 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* REVSH : cccc 0110 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1011 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff00070) == 0x06b00030 ||
(insn & 0x0ff00070) == 0x06f00030)
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_rd12rm0(insn, asi);
/* SADD16 : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx :GE */
/* SADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx :GE */
/* SSUBADDX : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :GE */
/* SSUB16 : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx :GE */
/* SADD8 : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :GE */
/* SSUB8 : cccc 0110 0001 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx :GE */
/* QADD16 : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx : */
/* QADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx : */
/* QSUBADDX : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx : */
/* QSUB16 : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* QADD8 : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* QSUB8 : cccc 0110 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx : */
/* SHADD16 : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx : */
/* SHADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx : */
/* SHSUBADDX : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx : */
/* SHSUB16 : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* SHADD8 : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* SHSUB8 : cccc 0110 0011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx : */
/* UADD16 : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx :GE */
/* UADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx :GE */
/* USUBADDX : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx :GE */
/* USUB16 : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx :GE */
/* UADD8 : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx :GE */
/* USUB8 : cccc 0110 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx :GE */
/* UQADD16 : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx : */
/* UQADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx : */
/* UQSUBADDX : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx : */
/* UQSUB16 : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* UQADD8 : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* UQSUB8 : cccc 0110 0110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx : */
/* UHADD16 : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx : */
/* UHADDSUBX : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0011 xxxx : */
/* UHSUBADDX : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0101 xxxx : */
/* UHSUB16 : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* UHADD8 : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1001 xxxx : */
/* UHSUB8 : cccc 0110 0111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx : */
/* PKHBT : cccc 0110 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx x001 xxxx : */
/* PKHTB : cccc 0110 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx x101 xxxx : */
/* SXTAB16 : cccc 0110 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* SXTB : cccc 0110 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* SXTAB : cccc 0110 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* SXTAH : cccc 0110 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* UXTAB16 : cccc 0110 1100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* UXTAB : cccc 0110 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
/* UXTAH : cccc 0110 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx : */
return prep_emulate_rd12rn16rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_0111__1(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* Undef : cccc 0111 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx 1111 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x03f000f0)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* USADA8 : cccc 0111 1000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0001 xxxx */
/* USAD8 : cccc 0111 1000 xxxx 1111 xxxx 0001 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff000f0) == 0x07800010)
return prep_emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
/* SMLALD : cccc 0111 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 00x1 xxxx */
/* SMLSLD : cccc 0111 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx 01x1 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0ff00090) == 0x07400010)
return prep_emulate_rdhi16rdlo12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
/* SMLAD : cccc 0111 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 00x1 xxxx :Q */
/* SMLSD : cccc 0111 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 01x1 xxxx :Q */
/* SMMLA : cccc 0111 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 00x1 xxxx : */
/* SMMLS : cccc 0111 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx 11x1 xxxx : */
if ((insn & 0x0ff00090) == 0x07000010 ||
(insn & 0x0ff000d0) == 0x07500010 ||
(insn & 0x0ff000d0) == 0x075000d0)
return prep_emulate_rd16rn12rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
/* SMUSD : cccc 0111 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx 01x1 xxxx : */
/* SMUAD : cccc 0111 0000 xxxx 1111 xxxx 00x1 xxxx :Q */
/* SMMUL : cccc 0111 0101 xxxx 1111 xxxx 00x1 xxxx : */
return prep_emulate_rd16rs8rm0_wflags(insn, asi);
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_01xx(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* LDR : cccc 01xx x0x1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* LDRB : cccc 01xx x1x1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* LDRBT : cccc 01x0 x111 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* LDRT : cccc 01x0 x011 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STR : cccc 01xx x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STRB : cccc 01xx x1x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STRBT : cccc 01x0 x110 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STRT : cccc 01x0 x010 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x00500000) == 0x00500000 && is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* LDRB into PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return prep_emulate_ldr_str(insn, asi);
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_100x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* LDM(2) : cccc 100x x101 xxxx 0xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* LDM(3) : cccc 100x x1x1 xxxx 1xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0e708000) == 0x85000000 ||
(insn & 0x0e508000) == 0x85010000)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* LDM(1) : cccc 100x x0x1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STM(1) : cccc 100x x0x0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
asi->insn_handler = ((insn & 0x108000) == 0x008000) ? /* STM & R15 */
simulate_stm1_pc : simulate_ldm1stm1;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_101x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* B : cccc 1010 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* BL : cccc 1011 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
asi->insn_handler = simulate_bbl;
return INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT;
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_1100_010x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* MCRR : cccc 1100 0100 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : (Rd!=Rn) */
/* MRRC : cccc 1100 0101 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx : (Rd!=Rn) */
if (is_r15(insn, 16) || is_r15(insn, 12))
return INSN_REJECTED; /* Rn or Rd is PC */
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
insn &= 0xfff00fff;
insn |= 0x00001000; /* Rn = r0, Rd = r1 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? emulate_mrrc : emulate_mcrr;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_110x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* LDC : cccc 110x xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
/* STC : cccc 110x xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
insn &= 0xfff0ffff; /* Rn = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_ldcstc;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
space_cccc_111x(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
/* BKPT : 1110 0001 0010 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0111 xxxx */
/* SWI : cccc 1111 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx */
if ((insn & 0xfff000f0) == 0xe1200070 ||
(insn & 0x0f000000) == 0x0f000000)
return INSN_REJECTED;
/* CDP : cccc 1110 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx0 xxxx */
if ((insn & 0x0f000010) == 0x0e000000) {
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = emulate_none;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
/* MCR : cccc 1110 xxx0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx1 xxxx */
/* MRC : cccc 1110 xxx1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx1 xxxx */
insn &= 0xffff0fff; /* Rd = r0 */
asi->insn[0] = insn;
asi->insn_handler = (insn & (1 << 20)) ? emulate_rd12 : emulate_ird12;
return INSN_GOOD;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_eq(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return cpsr & PSR_Z_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_ne(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return (~cpsr) & PSR_Z_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_cs(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return cpsr & PSR_C_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_cc(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return (~cpsr) & PSR_C_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_mi(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return cpsr & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_pl(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return (~cpsr) & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_vs(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return cpsr & PSR_V_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_vc(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return (~cpsr) & PSR_V_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_hi(unsigned long cpsr)
{
cpsr &= ~(cpsr >> 1); /* PSR_C_BIT &= ~PSR_Z_BIT */
return cpsr & PSR_C_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_ls(unsigned long cpsr)
{
cpsr &= ~(cpsr >> 1); /* PSR_C_BIT &= ~PSR_Z_BIT */
return (~cpsr) & PSR_C_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_ge(unsigned long cpsr)
{
cpsr ^= (cpsr << 3); /* PSR_N_BIT ^= PSR_V_BIT */
return (~cpsr) & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_lt(unsigned long cpsr)
{
cpsr ^= (cpsr << 3); /* PSR_N_BIT ^= PSR_V_BIT */
return cpsr & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_gt(unsigned long cpsr)
{
unsigned long temp = cpsr ^ (cpsr << 3); /* PSR_N_BIT ^= PSR_V_BIT */
temp |= (cpsr << 1); /* PSR_N_BIT |= PSR_Z_BIT */
return (~temp) & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_le(unsigned long cpsr)
{
unsigned long temp = cpsr ^ (cpsr << 3); /* PSR_N_BIT ^= PSR_V_BIT */
temp |= (cpsr << 1); /* PSR_N_BIT |= PSR_Z_BIT */
return temp & PSR_N_BIT;
}
static unsigned long __kprobes __check_al(unsigned long cpsr)
{
return true;
}
static kprobe_check_cc * const condition_checks[16] = {
&__check_eq, &__check_ne, &__check_cs, &__check_cc,
&__check_mi, &__check_pl, &__check_vs, &__check_vc,
&__check_hi, &__check_ls, &__check_ge, &__check_lt,
&__check_gt, &__check_le, &__check_al, &__check_al
};
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
/* Return:
* INSN_REJECTED If instruction is one not allowed to kprobe,
* INSN_GOOD If instruction is supported and uses instruction slot,
* INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT If instruction is supported but doesn't use its slot.
*
* For instructions we don't want to kprobe (INSN_REJECTED return result):
* These are generally ones that modify the processor state making
* them "hard" to simulate such as switches processor modes or
* make accesses in alternate modes. Any of these could be simulated
* if the work was put into it, but low return considering they
* should also be very rare.
*/
enum kprobe_insn __kprobes
arm_kprobe_decode_insn(kprobe_opcode_t insn, struct arch_specific_insn *asi)
{
asi->insn_check_cc = condition_checks[insn>>28];
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
asi->insn[1] = KPROBE_RETURN_INSTRUCTION;
if ((insn & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) {
return space_1111(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0e000000) == 0x00000000) {
return space_cccc_000x(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0e000000) == 0x02000000) {
return space_cccc_001x(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0f000010) == 0x06000010) {
return space_cccc_0110__1(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0f000010) == 0x07000010) {
return space_cccc_0111__1(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0c000000) == 0x04000000) {
return space_cccc_01xx(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0e000000) == 0x08000000) {
return space_cccc_100x(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0e000000) == 0x0a000000) {
return space_cccc_101x(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0fe00000) == 0x0c400000) {
return space_cccc_1100_010x(insn, asi);
} else if ((insn & 0x0e000000) == 0x0c000000) {
ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping support This is the code implementing instruction single-stepping for kprobes on ARM. To get around the limitation of no Next-PC and no hardware single- stepping, all kprobe'd instructions are split into three camps: simulation, emulation, and rejected. "Simulated" instructions are those instructions which behavior is reproduced by straight C code. "Emulated" instructions are ones that are copied, slightly altered and executed directly in the instruction slot to reproduce their behavior. "Rejected" instructions are ones that could be simulated, but work hasn't been put into simulating them. These instructions should be very rare, if not unencountered, in the kernel. If ever needed, code could be added to simulate them. One might wonder why this and the ptrace singlestep facility are not sharing some code. Both approaches are fundamentally different because the ptrace code regains control after the stepped instruction by installing a breakpoint after the instruction itself, and possibly at the location where the instruction might be branching to, instead of simulating or emulating the target instruction. The ptrace approach isn't suitable for kprobes because the breakpoints would have to be moved back, and the icache flushed, everytime the probe is hit to let normal code execution resume, which would have a significant performance impact. It is also racy on SMP since another CPU could, with the right timing, sail through the probe point without being caught. Because ptrace single-stepping always result in a different process to be scheduled, the concern for performance is much less significant. On the other hand, the kprobes approach isn't (currently) suitable for ptrace because it has no provision for proper user space memory protection and translation, and even if that was implemented, the gain wouldn't be worth the added complexity in the ptrace path compared to the current approach. So, until kprobes does support user space, both kprobes and ptrace are best kept independent and separate. Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
2007-06-11 15:20:10 -07:00
return space_cccc_110x(insn, asi);
}
return space_cccc_111x(insn, asi);
}
void __init arm_kprobe_decode_init(void)
{
find_str_pc_offset();
}
/*
* All ARM instructions listed below.
*
* Instructions and their general purpose registers are given.
* If a particular register may not use R15, it is prefixed with a "!".
* If marked with a "*" means the value returned by reading R15
* is implementation defined.
*
* ADC/ADD/AND/BIC/CMN/CMP/EOR/MOV/MVN/ORR/RSB/RSC/SBC/SUB/TEQ
* TST: Rd, Rn, Rm, !Rs
* BX: Rm
* BLX(2): !Rm
* BX: Rm (R15 legal, but discouraged)
* BXJ: !Rm,
* CLZ: !Rd, !Rm
* CPY: Rd, Rm
* LDC/2,STC/2 immediate offset & unindex: Rn
* LDC/2,STC/2 immediate pre/post-indexed: !Rn
* LDM(1/3): !Rn, register_list
* LDM(2): !Rn, !register_list
* LDR,STR,PLD immediate offset: Rd, Rn
* LDR,STR,PLD register offset: Rd, Rn, !Rm
* LDR,STR,PLD scaled register offset: Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDR,STR immediate pre/post-indexed: Rd, !Rn
* LDR,STR register pre/post-indexed: Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDR,STR scaled register pre/post-indexed: Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRB,STRB immediate offset: !Rd, Rn
* LDRB,STRB register offset: !Rd, Rn, !Rm
* LDRB,STRB scaled register offset: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRB,STRB immediate pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn
* LDRB,STRB register pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRB,STRB scaled register pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRT,LDRBT,STRBT immediate pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn
* LDRT,LDRBT,STRBT register pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRT,LDRBT,STRBT scaled register pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDRH/SH/SB/D,STRH/SH/SB/D immediate offset: !Rd, Rn
* LDRH/SH/SB/D,STRH/SH/SB/D register offset: !Rd, Rn, !Rm
* LDRH/SH/SB/D,STRH/SH/SB/D immediate pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn
* LDRH/SH/SB/D,STRH/SH/SB/D register pre/post-indexed: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* LDREX: !Rd, !Rn
* MCR/2: !Rd
* MCRR/2,MRRC/2: !Rd, !Rn
* MLA: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm, !Rs
* MOV: Rd
* MRC/2: !Rd (if Rd==15, only changes cond codes, not the register)
* MRS,MSR: !Rd
* MUL: !Rd, !Rm, !Rs
* PKH{BT,TB}: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* QDADD,[U]QADD/16/8/SUBX: !Rd, !Rm, !Rn
* QDSUB,[U]QSUB/16/8/ADDX: !Rd, !Rm, !Rn
* REV/16/SH: !Rd, !Rm
* RFE: !Rn
* {S,U}[H]ADD{16,8,SUBX},{S,U}[H]SUB{16,8,ADDX}: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* SEL: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* SMLA<x><y>,SMLA{D,W<y>},SMLSD,SMML{A,S}: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm, !Rs
* SMLAL<x><y>,SMLA{D,LD},SMLSLD,SMMULL,SMULW<y>: !RdHi, !RdLo, !Rm, !Rs
* SMMUL,SMUAD,SMUL<x><y>,SMUSD: !Rd, !Rm, !Rs
* SSAT/16: !Rd, !Rm
* STM(1/2): !Rn, register_list* (R15 in reg list not recommended)
* STRT immediate pre/post-indexed: Rd*, !Rn
* STRT register pre/post-indexed: Rd*, !Rn, !Rm
* STRT scaled register pre/post-indexed: Rd*, !Rn, !Rm
* STREX: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* SWP/B: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* {S,U}XTA{B,B16,H}: !Rd, !Rn, !Rm
* {S,U}XT{B,B16,H}: !Rd, !Rm
* UM{AA,LA,UL}L: !RdHi, !RdLo, !Rm, !Rs
* USA{D8,A8,T,T16}: !Rd, !Rm, !Rs
*
* May transfer control by writing R15 (possible mode changes or alternate
* mode accesses marked by "*"):
* ALU op (* with s-bit), B, BL, BKPT, BLX(1/2), BX, BXJ, CPS*, CPY,
* LDM(1), LDM(2/3)*, LDR, MOV, RFE*, SWI*
*
* Instructions that do not take general registers, nor transfer control:
* CDP/2, SETEND, SRS*
*/