aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/include/asm-arm/kprobes.h
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Kprobes: indicate kretprobe support in KconfigAnanth N Mavinakayanahalli2008-03-04
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Add CONFIG_HAVE_KRETPROBES to the arch/<arch>/Kconfig file for relevant architectures with kprobes support. This facilitates easy handling of in-kernel modules (like samples/kprobes/kretprobe_example.c) that depend on kretprobes being present in the kernel. Thanks to Sam Ravnborg for helping make the patch more lean. Per Mathieu's suggestion, added CONFIG_KRETPROBES and fixed up dependencies. Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com> Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
* ARM kprobes: special hook for the kprobes breakpoint handlerNicolas Pitre2008-01-26
| | | | | | | | | | The kprobes code is already able to cope with reentrant probes, so its handler must be called outside of the region protected by undef_lock. If ever this lock is released when handlers are called then this commit could be reverted. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
* ARM kprobes: core codeAbhishek Sagar2008-01-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is a full implementation of Kprobes including Jprobes and Kretprobes support. This ARM implementation does not follow the usual kprobes double- exception model. The traditional model is where the initial kprobes breakpoint calls kprobe_handler(), which returns from exception to execute the instruction in its original context, then immediately re-enters after a second breakpoint (or single-stepping exception) into post_kprobe_handler(), each time the probe is hit.. The ARM implementation only executes one kprobes exception per hit, so no post_kprobe_handler() phase. All side-effects from the kprobe'd instruction are resolved before returning from the initial exception. As a result, all instructions are _always_ effectively boosted regardless of the type of instruction, and even regardless of whether or not there is a post-handler for the probe. Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
* ARM kprobes: instruction single-stepping supportQuentin Barnes2008-01-26
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>