[PATCH v3 19/28] arm64/sve: ptrace and ELF coredump support
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2017-10-12 17:06:32
Also in:
kvmarm, linux-arch
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:38:36PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -702,6 +737,211 @@ static int system_call_set(struct task_struct *target, return ret; } +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SVE + +static void sve_init_header_from_task(struct user_sve_header *header, + struct task_struct *target) +{ + unsigned int vq; + + memset(header, 0, sizeof(*header)); + + header->flags = test_tsk_thread_flag(target, TIF_SVE) ? + SVE_PT_REGS_SVE : SVE_PT_REGS_FPSIMD;
For PTRACE_SYSCALL, we may or may not have TIF_SVE depending on what happened with the target. Just a thought: shall we clear TIF_SVE (and sync it to fpsimd) in syscall_trace_enter()?
+ if (test_tsk_thread_flag(target, TIF_SVE_VL_INHERIT)) + header->flags |= SVE_PT_VL_INHERIT; + + header->vl = target->thread.sve_vl; + vq = sve_vq_from_vl(header->vl); + + header->max_vl = sve_max_vl; + if (WARN_ON(!sve_vl_valid(sve_max_vl))) + header->max_vl = header->vl; + + header->size = SVE_PT_SIZE(vq, header->flags); + header->max_size = SVE_PT_SIZE(sve_vq_from_vl(header->max_vl), + SVE_PT_REGS_SVE); +}
[...]
+static int sve_set(struct task_struct *target,
+ const struct user_regset *regset,
+ unsigned int pos, unsigned int count,
+ const void *kbuf, const void __user *ubuf)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct user_sve_header header;
+ unsigned int vq;
+ unsigned long start, end;
+
+ if (!system_supports_sve())
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* Header */
+ if (count < sizeof(header))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ ret = user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf, &header,
+ 0, sizeof(header));
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /*
+ * Apart from PT_SVE_REGS_MASK, all PT_SVE_* flags are consumed by
+ * sve_set_vector_length(), which will also validate them for us:
+ */
+ ret = sve_set_vector_length(target, header.vl,
+ ((unsigned long)header.flags & ~SVE_PT_REGS_MASK) << 16);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /* Actual VL set may be less than the user asked for: */
+ vq = sve_vq_from_vl(target->thread.sve_vl);
+
+ /* Registers: FPSIMD-only case */
+
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(SVE_PT_FPSIMD_OFFSET != sizeof(header));
+ if ((header.flags & SVE_PT_REGS_MASK) == SVE_PT_REGS_FPSIMD) {
+ sve_sync_to_fpsimd(target);
+
+ ret = __fpr_set(target, regset, pos, count, kbuf, ubuf,
+ SVE_PT_FPSIMD_OFFSET);
+ clear_tsk_thread_flag(target, TIF_SVE);
+ goto out;
+ }__fpr_set() already calls sve_sync_to_fpsimd(). Anyway, do you actually need this since we are going to override the FPSIMD state anyway here.
+
+ /* Otherwise: full SVE case */
+
+ /*
+ * If setting a different VL from the requested VL and there is
+ * register data, the data layout will be wrong: don't even
+ * try to set the registers in this case.
+ */
+ if (count && vq != sve_vq_from_vl(header.vl)) {
+ ret = -EIO;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ sve_alloc(target);
+ fpsimd_sync_to_sve(target);Similarly here, it's a full SVE case, so we are going to override it anyway.
+ set_tsk_thread_flag(target, TIF_SVE);
This has the side-effect of enabling TIF_SVE even for PTRACE_SYSCALL which may be cleared in some circumstances. It may not be an issue though. -- Catalin