[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Yang Shi]

The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.

Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
+		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+			local_irq_enable();
+
 		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
 		info.si_errno = 0;
 		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
@@ -310,6 +313,9 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 	siginfo_t info;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
+		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+			local_irq_enable();
+
 		info = (siginfo_t) {
 			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
 			.si_errno = 0,
@@ -337,6 +343,10 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!compat_user_mode(regs))
 		return -EFAULT;
 
+	/* COMPAT_PSR_I_BIT has the same bit mask with non-compat one */
+	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+		local_irq_enable();
+
 	if (compat_thumb_mode(regs)) {
 		/* get 16-bit Thumb instruction */
 		get_user(thumb_instr, (u16 __user *)pc);
-- 
2.0.2

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Yang Shi]

The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.

Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
+		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+			local_irq_enable();
+
 		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
 		info.si_errno = 0;
 		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
@@ -310,6 +313,9 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 	siginfo_t info;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
+		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+			local_irq_enable();
+
 		info = (siginfo_t) {
 			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
 			.si_errno = 0,
@@ -337,6 +343,10 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!compat_user_mode(regs))
 		return -EFAULT;
 
+	/* COMPAT_PSR_I_BIT has the same bit mask with non-compat one */
+	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+		local_irq_enable();
+
 	if (compat_thumb_mode(regs)) {
 		/* get 16-bit Thumb instruction */
 		get_user(thumb_instr, (u16 __user *)pc);
-- 
2.0.2

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> disabled by the parent process.

Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
worth doing.

> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> +		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
> +			local_irq_enable();
> +

My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.

Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
unless there's a real problem being solved.

Will

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> disabled by the parent process.

Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
worth doing.

> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> +		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
> +			local_irq_enable();
> +

My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.

Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
unless there's a real problem being solved.

Will

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
>> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
>> disabled by the parent process.
>
> Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
> Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
> worth doing.

I should made more comments at the first place, sorry for the inconvenience.

I did run into some problems on -rt kernel with CRIU restore, please see 
the below kernel bug log:

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
/kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
Call trace:
[<ffff8000000885f0>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
[<ffff80000008873c>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[<ffff800000798e84>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
[<ffff8000000bd858>] ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
[<ffff8000007a072c>] rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[<ffff8000000a477c>] force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
[<ffff800000085174>] brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
[<ffff800000085260>] brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
[<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
Exception stack(0xffff80834b6e3e30 to 0xffff80834b6e3f50)
3e20:                                     00000000 00000000 004e6000 
00000000
3e40: ffffffff ffffffff 00400004 00000000 0000d280 00000000 00000007 
00000000
3e60: 00000021 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 0000011a 00000000 000000de 
00000000
3e80: 4ab9ef50 ffff8083 00086324 ffff8000 e587f780 0000ffff 000839b0 
ffff8000
3ea0: 00000000 00000000 004e6000 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 00400004 
00000000
3ec0: 60000000 00000000 00000015 00000000 aa3e6000 0000ffff 0000d280 
00000000
3ee0: 00000007 00000000 00000021 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 00000000 
00000000
3f00: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 000000de 00000000 00000008 
00000000
3f20: 004eff00 00000000 004e4ff0 00000000 004f0490 00000000 e587f730 
0000ffff
3f40: 0046f508 00000000 00000028 00000000

It is because force_sig_info called spin_lock_irqsave which could sleep 
on -rt kernel with irq disabled.

However, it just happens at brk_handler in my test. But, I saw 
single_step has the same code path, so I expanded it to single step too.

Since this is rt related, cc to rt mailing list too.

>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>>   		return 0;
>>
>>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
>> +		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
>> +			local_irq_enable();
>> +
>
> My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
> decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
> in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
> then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.
>
> Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
> that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
> unless there's a real problem being solved.

The patch is inspired by the similar code in other architectures, e.g. 
x86 and powerpc which have hardware debug exception to handle breakpoint 
and single step like arm64. And, they have interrupt enabled in both 
breakpoint and single step. So, I'm supposed arm64 could do the same thing.

For the preempt case, it might be possible, but it sounds like a 
exception handling problem to me. The preempt should not be allowed in 
debug exception (current arm64 kernel does it), and in interrupt return 
path the code should check if debug is on or not. If debug is on, 
preempt should be just skipped. Or we could disable preempt in debug 
exception.

I also checked the handling in x86 and powerpc, they go different way.

1. x86
Disable preempt in IST exception since it uses per CPU stack.

2. powerpc
Check if debug is on in interrupt return path. Powerpc has DBCR0_IDM 
indicate if the processor is in debug mode.

For ARM64, I don't find such bit. So, I may consider to have preempt 
disabled.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
>> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
>> disabled by the parent process.
>
> Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
> Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
> worth doing.

I should made more comments at the first place, sorry for the inconvenience.

I did run into some problems on -rt kernel with CRIU restore, please see 
the below kernel bug log:

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
/kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
Call trace:
[<ffff8000000885f0>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
[<ffff80000008873c>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[<ffff800000798e84>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
[<ffff8000000bd858>] ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
[<ffff8000007a072c>] rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[<ffff8000000a477c>] force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
[<ffff800000085174>] brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
[<ffff800000085260>] brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
[<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
Exception stack(0xffff80834b6e3e30 to 0xffff80834b6e3f50)
3e20:                                     00000000 00000000 004e6000 
00000000
3e40: ffffffff ffffffff 00400004 00000000 0000d280 00000000 00000007 
00000000
3e60: 00000021 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 0000011a 00000000 000000de 
00000000
3e80: 4ab9ef50 ffff8083 00086324 ffff8000 e587f780 0000ffff 000839b0 
ffff8000
3ea0: 00000000 00000000 004e6000 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 00400004 
00000000
3ec0: 60000000 00000000 00000015 00000000 aa3e6000 0000ffff 0000d280 
00000000
3ee0: 00000007 00000000 00000021 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 00000000 
00000000
3f00: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 000000de 00000000 00000008 
00000000
3f20: 004eff00 00000000 004e4ff0 00000000 004f0490 00000000 e587f730 
0000ffff
3f40: 0046f508 00000000 00000028 00000000

It is because force_sig_info called spin_lock_irqsave which could sleep 
on -rt kernel with irq disabled.

However, it just happens at brk_handler in my test. But, I saw 
single_step has the same code path, so I expanded it to single step too.

Since this is rt related, cc to rt mailing list too.

>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> index 8aee3ae..90d70e4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
>> @@ -239,6 +239,9 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>>   		return 0;
>>
>>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
>> +		if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
>> +			local_irq_enable();
>> +
>
> My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
> decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
> in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
> then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.
>
> Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
> that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
> unless there's a real problem being solved.

The patch is inspired by the similar code in other architectures, e.g. 
x86 and powerpc which have hardware debug exception to handle breakpoint 
and single step like arm64. And, they have interrupt enabled in both 
breakpoint and single step. So, I'm supposed arm64 could do the same thing.

For the preempt case, it might be possible, but it sounds like a 
exception handling problem to me. The preempt should not be allowed in 
debug exception (current arm64 kernel does it), and in interrupt return 
path the code should check if debug is on or not. If debug is on, 
preempt should be just skipped. Or we could disable preempt in debug 
exception.

I also checked the handling in x86 and powerpc, they go different way.

1. x86
Disable preempt in IST exception since it uses per CPU stack.

2. powerpc
Check if debug is on in interrupt return path. Powerpc has DBCR0_IDM 
indicate if the processor is in debug mode.

For ARM64, I don't find such bit. So, I may consider to have preempt 
disabled.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:45:15PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> >>debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> >>disabled by the parent process.
> >
> >Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
> >Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
> >worth doing.
> 
> I should made more comments at the first place, sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> I did run into some problems on -rt kernel with CRIU restore, please see the
> below kernel bug log:

Thanks.

> >My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
> >decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
> >in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
> >then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.
> >
> >Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
> >that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
> >unless there's a real problem being solved.
> 
> The patch is inspired by the similar code in other architectures, e.g. x86
> and powerpc which have hardware debug exception to handle breakpoint and
> single step like arm64. And, they have interrupt enabled in both breakpoint
> and single step. So, I'm supposed arm64 could do the same thing.
> 
> For the preempt case, it might be possible, but it sounds like a exception
> handling problem to me. The preempt should not be allowed in debug exception
> (current arm64 kernel does it), and in interrupt return path the code should
> check if debug is on or not. If debug is on, preempt should be just skipped.
> Or we could disable preempt in debug exception.

Yeah, disabling preemption during the debug handler and then enabling
interrupts if it came from userspace sounds like the best option. However,
that's a fairly invasive change to entry.S at this point, so maybe we're
better off with something like the patch below in the meantime?

Will

--->8

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3aeec3e6..7f4913f2ea3c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -226,11 +226,29 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 	return retval;
 }
 
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+	siginfo_t info = {
+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
+		.si_errno	= 0,
+		.si_code	= si_code,
+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
+	};
+
+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
+		return;
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	local_irq_enable();
+	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	local_irq_disable();
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
 static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 			       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	/*
 	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
 	 * handler first.
@@ -239,11 +257,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
-		info.si_errno = 0;
-		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
-		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
 
 		/*
 		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
@@ -307,17 +321,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info = (siginfo_t) {
-			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-			.si_errno = 0,
-			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
-		};
-
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
 		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
 		return -EFAULT;
@@ -328,7 +333,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 
 int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
 	u32 arm_instr;
 	u16 thumb_instr;
 	bool bp = false;
@@ -359,14 +363,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!bp)
 		return -EFAULT;
 
-	info = (siginfo_t) {
-		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-		.si_errno = 0,
-		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-		.si_addr  = pc,
-	};
-
-	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	return 0;
 }
 

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:45:15PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> >>debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> >>disabled by the parent process.
> >
> >Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or did you just spot this?
> >Given that force_sig_info disable interrupts, I don't think this is really
> >worth doing.
> 
> I should made more comments at the first place, sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> I did run into some problems on -rt kernel with CRIU restore, please see the
> below kernel bug log:

Thanks.

> >My worry here is that we take an interrupt and, on the return path,
> >decide to reschedule due to CONFIG_PREEMPT. If we somehow end up back
> >in the debugger, I'm concerned that it could remove the breakpoint and
> >then later see an unexpected SIGTRAP from the child.
> >
> >Having said that, I've failed to construct a non-racy scenario in which
> >that can happen, but I'm just really uncomfortable making this change
> >unless there's a real problem being solved.
> 
> The patch is inspired by the similar code in other architectures, e.g. x86
> and powerpc which have hardware debug exception to handle breakpoint and
> single step like arm64. And, they have interrupt enabled in both breakpoint
> and single step. So, I'm supposed arm64 could do the same thing.
> 
> For the preempt case, it might be possible, but it sounds like a exception
> handling problem to me. The preempt should not be allowed in debug exception
> (current arm64 kernel does it), and in interrupt return path the code should
> check if debug is on or not. If debug is on, preempt should be just skipped.
> Or we could disable preempt in debug exception.

Yeah, disabling preemption during the debug handler and then enabling
interrupts if it came from userspace sounds like the best option. However,
that's a fairly invasive change to entry.S at this point, so maybe we're
better off with something like the patch below in the meantime?

Will

--->8

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3aeec3e6..7f4913f2ea3c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -226,11 +226,29 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 	return retval;
 }
 
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+	siginfo_t info = {
+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
+		.si_errno	= 0,
+		.si_code	= si_code,
+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
+	};
+
+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
+		return;
+
+	preempt_disable();
+	local_irq_enable();
+	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	local_irq_disable();
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
 static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 			       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	/*
 	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
 	 * handler first.
@@ -239,11 +257,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
-		info.si_errno = 0;
-		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
-		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
 
 		/*
 		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
@@ -307,17 +321,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info = (siginfo_t) {
-			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-			.si_errno = 0,
-			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
-		};
-
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
 		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
 		return -EFAULT;
@@ -328,7 +333,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 
 int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
 	u32 arm_instr;
 	u16 thumb_instr;
 	bool bp = false;
@@ -359,14 +363,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!bp)
 		return -EFAULT;
 
-	info = (siginfo_t) {
-		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-		.si_errno = 0,
-		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-		.si_addr  = pc,
-	};
-
-	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	return 0;
 }
 

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> +	siginfo_t info = {
> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> +		.si_errno	= 0,
> +		.si_code	= si_code,
> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> +	};
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> +		return;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();

That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.

Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
being preempted or even migrated?

Thanks,

	tglx

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> +	siginfo_t info = {
> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> +		.si_errno	= 0,
> +		.si_code	= si_code,
> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> +	};
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> +		return;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();

That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.

Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
being preempted or even migrated?

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> > +{
> > +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> > +	siginfo_t info = {
> > +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> > +		.si_errno	= 0,
> > +		.si_code	= si_code,
> > +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> 
> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.

Ah, I missed that :/

> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
> being preempted or even migrated?

There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.

My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.

Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
real issue here on RT.

Will

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> > +{
> > +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> > +	siginfo_t info = {
> > +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> > +		.si_errno	= 0,
> > +		.si_code	= si_code,
> > +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	preempt_disable();
> 
> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.

Ah, I missed that :/

> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
> being preempted or even migrated?

There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.

My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.

Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
real issue here on RT.

Will

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>
>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>
> Ah, I missed that :/
>
>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>> being preempted or even migrated?
>
> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>
> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>
> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> real issue here on RT.

Thanks for the review.

I don't have any concrete usecase for that race condition too since all 
ptrace tests from ltp passed. However, even though we need preemption 
disabled at some point in debug exception code path in the future, I 
think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64 
to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.

Regards,
Yang

>
> Will
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>
>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>
> Ah, I missed that :/
>
>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>> being preempted or even migrated?
>
> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>
> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>
> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> real issue here on RT.

Thanks for the review.

I don't have any concrete usecase for that race condition too since all 
ptrace tests from ltp passed. However, even though we need preemption 
disabled at some point in debug exception code path in the future, I 
think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64 
to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.

Regards,
Yang

>
> Will
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>
>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>
> Ah, I missed that :/
>
>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>> being preempted or even migrated?
>
> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>
> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>
> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> real issue here on RT.

Hi Will,

This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to 
double check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting 
it merged in upstream?

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>
>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>
> Ah, I missed that :/
>
>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>> being preempted or even migrated?
>
> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>
> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>
> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> real issue here on RT.

Hi Will,

This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to 
double check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting 
it merged in upstream?

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> >>>+	siginfo_t info = {
> >>>+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> >>>+		.si_errno	= 0,
> >>>+		.si_code	= si_code,
> >>>+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> >>>+	};
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> >>>+		return;
> >>>+
> >>>+	preempt_disable();
> >>
> >>That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
> >>which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
> >
> >Ah, I missed that :/
> >
> >>Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
> >>being preempted or even migrated?
> >
> >There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> >the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
> >
> >My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> >could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> >see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
> >
> >Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> >enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> >real issue here on RT.
> 
> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> in upstream?

Sorry, when you replied with:

> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.

I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
anything more from you.

What's the plan?

Will

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> >>>+	siginfo_t info = {
> >>>+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> >>>+		.si_errno	= 0,
> >>>+		.si_code	= si_code,
> >>>+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> >>>+	};
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> >>>+		return;
> >>>+
> >>>+	preempt_disable();
> >>
> >>That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
> >>which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
> >
> >Ah, I missed that :/
> >
> >>Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
> >>being preempted or even migrated?
> >
> >There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> >the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
> >
> >My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> >could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> >see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
> >
> >Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> >enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> >real issue here on RT.
> 
> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> in upstream?

Sorry, when you replied with:

> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.

I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
anything more from you.

What's the plan?

Will

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> >>>+	siginfo_t info = {
> >>>+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> >>>+		.si_errno	= 0,
> >>>+		.si_code	= si_code,
> >>>+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> >>>+	};
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
> >>>+		return;
> >>>+
> >>>+	preempt_disable();
> >>
> >>That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
> >>which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
> >
> >Ah, I missed that :/
> >
> >>Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
> >>being preempted or even migrated?
> >
> >There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
> >the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
> >
> >My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
> >could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
> >see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
> >
> >Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
> >enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
> >real issue here on RT.
> 
> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> in upstream?

Sorry, when you replied with:

> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.

I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
anything more from you.

What's the plan?

Will

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>>>> +	};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>>>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>>>
>>> Ah, I missed that :/
>>>
>>>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>>>> being preempted or even migrated?
>>>
>>> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
>>> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>>>
>>> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
>>> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
>>> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>>>
>>> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
>>> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
>>> real issue here on RT.
>>
>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
>> in upstream?
>
> Sorry, when you replied with:
>
>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>
> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> anything more from you.
>
> What's the plan?

Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 
-rt should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is 
still the preferred approach.

Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be 
disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other 
architectures for now, including arm64.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>>>> +	siginfo_t info = {
>>>>> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
>>>>> +		.si_errno	= 0,
>>>>> +		.si_code	= si_code,
>>>>> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
>>>>> +	};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
>>>>> +		return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	preempt_disable();
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't work on RT either. force_sig_info() takes task->sighand->siglock,
>>>> which is a 'sleeping' spinlock on RT.
>>>
>>> Ah, I missed that :/
>>>
>>>> Why would we need to disable preemption here at all? What's the problem of
>>>> being preempted or even migrated?
>>>
>>> There *might* not be a problem, I'm just really nervous about changing
>>> the behaviour on the debug path and subtly changing how ptrace behaves.
>>>
>>> My worry was that you could somehow get back into the tracer, and it
>>> could remove a software breakpoint in the knowledge that it wouldn't
>>> see any future (spurious) SIGTRAPs for that location.
>>>
>>> Without a concrete example, however, I guess I'll bite the bullet and
>>> enable irqs across the call to force_sig_info, since there is clearly a
>>> real issue here on RT.
>>
>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
>> in upstream?
>
> Sorry, when you replied with:
>
>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>
> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> anything more from you.
>
> What's the plan?

Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 
-rt should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is 
still the preferred approach.

Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be 
disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other 
architectures for now, including arm64.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Will
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> >>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> >>in upstream?
> >
> >Sorry, when you replied with:
> >
> >>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> >>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >
> >I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >anything more from you.
> >
> >What's the plan?
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
> the preferred approach.
> 
> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
> for now, including arm64.

Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
else?

Will

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
> >>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
> >>in upstream?
> >
> >Sorry, when you replied with:
> >
> >>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
> >>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >
> >I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >anything more from you.
> >
> >What's the plan?
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
> the preferred approach.
> 
> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
> for now, including arm64.

Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
else?

Will

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
>>>> in upstream?
>>>
>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>
>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>
>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>> anything more from you.
>>>
>>> What's the plan?
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
>> the preferred approach.
>>
>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
>> for now, including arm64.
>
> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
> else?

Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable 
and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is 
done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.

Thanks.,
Yang

>
> Will
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want to double
>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it merged
>>>> in upstream?
>>>
>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>
>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from x86-64
>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>
>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>> anything more from you.
>>>
>>> What's the plan?
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by x86-64 -rt
>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is still
>> the preferred approach.
>>
>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other architectures
>> for now, including arm64.
>
> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
> else?

Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable 
and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is 
done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.

Thanks.,
Yang

>
> Will
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
>>>>> to double
>>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
>>>>> merged
>>>>> in upstream?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>>
>>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
>>>>> x86-64
>>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>>
>>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>>> anything more from you.
>>>>
>>>> What's the plan?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
>>> x86-64 -rt
>>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
>>> still
>>> the preferred approach.
>>>
>>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
>>> architectures
>>> for now, including arm64.
>>
>> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
>> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
>> else?
>
> Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
> and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
> done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.


Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and 
ltp. So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Thanks.,
> Yang
>
>>
>> Will
>>
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
>>>>> to double
>>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
>>>>> merged
>>>>> in upstream?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>>
>>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
>>>>> x86-64
>>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>>
>>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>>> anything more from you.
>>>>
>>>> What's the plan?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
>>> x86-64 -rt
>>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
>>> still
>>> the preferred approach.
>>>
>>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
>>> architectures
>>> for now, including arm64.
>>
>> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
>> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
>> else?
>
> Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
> and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
> done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.


Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and 
ltp. So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Thanks.,
> Yang
>
>>
>> Will
>>
>

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>>>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
> >>>>>to double
> >>>>>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
> >>>>>merged
> >>>>>in upstream?
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, when you replied with:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
> >>>>>x86-64
> >>>>>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >>>>
> >>>>I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >>>>anything more from you.
> >>>>
> >>>>What's the plan?
> >>>
> >>>Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
> >>>x86-64 -rt
> >>>should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
> >>>still
> >>>the preferred approach.
> >>>
> >>>Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> >>>disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
> >>>architectures
> >>>for now, including arm64.
> >>
> >>Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
> >>window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
> >>else?
> >
> >Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
> >and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
> >done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.
> 
> 
> Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and ltp.
> So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.

I quite liked the sigtrap consolidation in my earlier (broken) approach.
Does the following work for you?

Will

--->8

>From e04a28d45ff343b47a4ffc4dee3a3e279e76ddfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:05:28 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: debug: re-enable irqs before sending breakpoint
 SIGTRAP

force_sig_info can sleep under an -rt kernel, so attempting to send a
breakpoint SIGTRAP with interrupts disabled yields the following BUG:

  BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
  /kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
  in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
  CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
  Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
  Call trace:
	 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
	 show_stack+0x24/0x30
	 dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
	 ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
	 rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
	 force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
	 brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
	 brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
	 do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8

This patch fixes the problem by ensuring that interrupts are enabled
prior to sending the SIGTRAP if they were already enabled in the user
context.

Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3aeec3e6..c536c9e307b9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -226,11 +226,28 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 	return retval;
 }
 
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+	siginfo_t info = {
+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
+		.si_errno	= 0,
+		.si_code	= si_code,
+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
+	};
+
+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
+		return;
+
+	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+		local_irq_enable();
+
+	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+}
+
 static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 			       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	/*
 	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
 	 * handler first.
@@ -239,11 +256,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
-		info.si_errno = 0;
-		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
-		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
 
 		/*
 		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
@@ -307,17 +320,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info = (siginfo_t) {
-			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-			.si_errno = 0,
-			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
-		};
-
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
 		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
 		return -EFAULT;
@@ -328,7 +332,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 
 int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
 	u32 arm_instr;
 	u16 thumb_instr;
 	bool bp = false;
@@ -359,14 +362,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!bp)
 		return -EFAULT;
 
-	info = (siginfo_t) {
-		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-		.si_errno = 0,
-		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-		.si_addr  = pc,
-	};
-
-	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.1.4

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>>>This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
> >>>>>to double
> >>>>>check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
> >>>>>merged
> >>>>>in upstream?
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, when you replied with:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
> >>>>>x86-64
> >>>>>to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
> >>>>
> >>>>I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
> >>>>anything more from you.
> >>>>
> >>>>What's the plan?
> >>>
> >>>Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
> >>>x86-64 -rt
> >>>should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
> >>>still
> >>>the preferred approach.
> >>>
> >>>Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
> >>>disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
> >>>architectures
> >>>for now, including arm64.
> >>
> >>Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
> >>window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
> >>else?
> >
> >Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
> >and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
> >done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.
> 
> 
> Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and ltp.
> So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.

I quite liked the sigtrap consolidation in my earlier (broken) approach.
Does the following work for you?

Will

--->8

>From e04a28d45ff343b47a4ffc4dee3a3e279e76ddfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:05:28 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: debug: re-enable irqs before sending breakpoint
 SIGTRAP

force_sig_info can sleep under an -rt kernel, so attempting to send a
breakpoint SIGTRAP with interrupts disabled yields the following BUG:

  BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
  /kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
  in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
  CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
  Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
  Call trace:
	 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
	 show_stack+0x24/0x30
	 dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
	 ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
	 rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
	 force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
	 brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
	 brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
	 do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8

This patch fixes the problem by ensuring that interrupts are enabled
prior to sending the SIGTRAP if they were already enabled in the user
context.

Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3aeec3e6..c536c9e307b9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -226,11 +226,28 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 	return retval;
 }
 
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+	siginfo_t info = {
+		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
+		.si_errno	= 0,
+		.si_code	= si_code,
+		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
+	};
+
+	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))
+		return;
+
+	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
+		local_irq_enable();
+
+	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+}
+
 static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 			       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	/*
 	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
 	 * handler first.
@@ -239,11 +256,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		return 0;
 
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
-		info.si_errno = 0;
-		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
-		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
 
 		/*
 		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
@@ -307,17 +320,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
 static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 		       struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
-
 	if (user_mode(regs)) {
-		info = (siginfo_t) {
-			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-			.si_errno = 0,
-			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
-		};
-
-		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
 		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
 		return -EFAULT;
@@ -328,7 +332,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
 
 int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-	siginfo_t info;
 	u32 arm_instr;
 	u16 thumb_instr;
 	bool bp = false;
@@ -359,14 +362,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (!bp)
 		return -EFAULT;
 
-	info = (siginfo_t) {
-		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
-		.si_errno = 0,
-		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
-		.si_addr  = pc,
-	};
-
-	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 2/11/2016 5:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
>>>>>>> to double
>>>>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>> in upstream?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
>>>>>>> x86-64
>>>>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>>>>> anything more from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the plan?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
>>>>> x86-64 -rt
>>>>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
>>>>> still
>>>>> the preferred approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>>>>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
>>>>> architectures
>>>>> for now, including arm64.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
>>>> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
>>> and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
>>> done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.
>>
>>
>> Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and ltp.
>> So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.
>
> I quite liked the sigtrap consolidation in my earlier (broken) approach.
> Does the following work for you?

Yes, sure. One minor comment below.

>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
>  From e04a28d45ff343b47a4ffc4dee3a3e279e76ddfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:05:28 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: debug: re-enable irqs before sending breakpoint
>   SIGTRAP
>
> force_sig_info can sleep under an -rt kernel, so attempting to send a
> breakpoint SIGTRAP with interrupts disabled yields the following BUG:
>
>    BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>    /kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
>    in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
>    CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
>    Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
>    Call trace:
> 	 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
> 	 show_stack+0x24/0x30
> 	 dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
> 	 ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
> 	 rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> 	 force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
> 	 brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
> 	 brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
> 	 do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
>
> This patch fixes the problem by ensuring that interrupts are enabled
> prior to sending the SIGTRAP if they were already enabled in the user
> context.
>
> Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> index 8aee3aeec3e6..c536c9e307b9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> @@ -226,11 +226,28 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
>   	return retval;
>   }
>
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> +	siginfo_t info = {
> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> +		.si_errno	= 0,
> +		.si_code	= si_code,
> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> +	};
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))

Maybe BUG_ON should be used here? Since send_user_sigtrap is called only 
when user_mode is positive, and interrupt is disabled at this point, so 
if it is not positive, it sounds list a bug.

Thanks,
Yang

> +		return;
> +
> +	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
> +		local_irq_enable();
> +
> +	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +}
> +
>   static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   			       struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
> -
>   	/*
>   	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
>   	 * handler first.
> @@ -239,11 +256,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   		return 0;
>
>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> -		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
> -		info.si_errno = 0;
> -		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
> -		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
> -		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
>
>   		/*
>   		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
> @@ -307,17 +320,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
>   static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   		       struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
> -
>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> -		info = (siginfo_t) {
> -			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> -			.si_errno = 0,
> -			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
> -			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> -		};
> -
> -		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
>   	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
>   		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
>   		return -EFAULT;
> @@ -328,7 +332,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>
>   int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
>   	u32 arm_instr;
>   	u16 thumb_instr;
>   	bool bp = false;
> @@ -359,14 +362,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   	if (!bp)
>   		return -EFAULT;
>
> -	info = (siginfo_t) {
> -		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> -		.si_errno = 0,
> -		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
> -		.si_addr  = pc,
> -	};
> -
> -	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
>   	return 0;
>   }
>
>

[PATCH] arm64: reenable interrupt when handling ptrace breakpoint

[Shi, Yang]

On 2/11/2016 5:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>> On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>>>>>>> This might be buried in email storm during the holiday. Just want
>>>>>>> to double
>>>>>>> check the status. I'm supposed there is no objection for getting it
>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>> in upstream?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, when you replied with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we could just extend the "signal delay send" approach from
>>>>>>> x86-64
>>>>>>> to arm64, which is currently used by x86-64 on -rt kernel only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understood that you were going to fix -rt, so I dropped this pending
>>>>>> anything more from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the plan?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the confusion. The "signal delay send" approach used by
>>>>> x86-64 -rt
>>>>> should be not necessary for arm64 right now. Reenabling interrupt is
>>>>> still
>>>>> the preferred approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since x86-64 has per-CPU IST exception stack, so preemption has to be
>>>>> disabled all the time. However, it is not applicable to other
>>>>> architectures
>>>>> for now, including arm64.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, we grew support for a separate IRQ stack in the recent merge
>>>> window. Does that change things here, or are you referring to something
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> Had a quick look at the patches, it looks the irq stack is not nestable
>>> and it switches back to the original stack as long as irq handler is
>>> done before preempt happens. So, it sounds it won't change things here.
>>
>>
>> Just had a quick test on 4.5-rc1. It survives with kgdbts, ptrace and ltp.
>> So, it sounds safe with the "separate IRQ stack" change.
>
> I quite liked the sigtrap consolidation in my earlier (broken) approach.
> Does the following work for you?

Yes, sure. One minor comment below.

>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
>  From e04a28d45ff343b47a4ffc4dee3a3e279e76ddfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:05:28 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: debug: re-enable irqs before sending breakpoint
>   SIGTRAP
>
> force_sig_info can sleep under an -rt kernel, so attempting to send a
> breakpoint SIGTRAP with interrupts disabled yields the following BUG:
>
>    BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>    /kernel-source/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
>    in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 551, name: test.sh
>    CPU: 5 PID: 551 Comm: test.sh Not tainted 4.1.13-rt13 #7
>    Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
>    Call trace:
> 	 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
> 	 show_stack+0x24/0x30
> 	 dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
> 	 ___might_sleep+0x128/0x1a0
> 	 rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> 	 force_sig_info+0xcc/0x210
> 	 brk_handler.part.2+0x6c/0x80
> 	 brk_handler+0xd8/0xe8
> 	 do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
>
> This patch fixes the problem by ensuring that interrupts are enabled
> prior to sending the SIGTRAP if they were already enabled in the user
> context.
>
> Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> index 8aee3aeec3e6..c536c9e307b9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> @@ -226,11 +226,28 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
>   	return retval;
>   }
>
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> +	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> +	siginfo_t info = {
> +		.si_signo	= SIGTRAP,
> +		.si_errno	= 0,
> +		.si_code	= si_code,
> +		.si_addr	= (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> +	};
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!user_mode(regs)))

Maybe BUG_ON should be used here? Since send_user_sigtrap is called only 
when user_mode is positive, and interrupt is disabled at this point, so 
if it is not positive, it sounds list a bug.

Thanks,
Yang

> +		return;
> +
> +	if (interrupts_enabled(regs))
> +		local_irq_enable();
> +
> +	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +}
> +
>   static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   			       struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
> -
>   	/*
>   	 * If we are stepping a pending breakpoint, call the hw_breakpoint
>   	 * handler first.
> @@ -239,11 +256,7 @@ static int single_step_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   		return 0;
>
>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> -		info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
> -		info.si_errno = 0;
> -		info.si_code  = TRAP_HWBKPT;
> -		info.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs);
> -		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_HWBKPT);
>
>   		/*
>   		 * ptrace will disable single step unless explicitly
> @@ -307,17 +320,8 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
>   static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>   		       struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
> -
>   	if (user_mode(regs)) {
> -		info = (siginfo_t) {
> -			.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> -			.si_errno = 0,
> -			.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
> -			.si_addr  = (void __user *)instruction_pointer(regs),
> -		};
> -
> -		force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +		send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
>   	} else if (call_break_hook(regs, esr) != DBG_HOOK_HANDLED) {
>   		pr_warning("Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1\n");
>   		return -EFAULT;
> @@ -328,7 +332,6 @@ static int brk_handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
>
>   int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
> -	siginfo_t info;
>   	u32 arm_instr;
>   	u16 thumb_instr;
>   	bool bp = false;
> @@ -359,14 +362,7 @@ int aarch32_break_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   	if (!bp)
>   		return -EFAULT;
>
> -	info = (siginfo_t) {
> -		.si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> -		.si_errno = 0,
> -		.si_code  = TRAP_BRKPT,
> -		.si_addr  = pc,
> -	};
> -
> -	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> +	send_user_sigtrap(TRAP_BRKPT);
>   	return 0;
>   }
>
>