On 18 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
>>> which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
>>> Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
>>> with othe functions like do_fork, vfs_read etc
On 18 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org wrote:
This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
with othe functions like do_fork,
>> This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
>> which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
>> Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
>> with othe functions like do_fork, vfs_read etc but no hit.
>
> You'd need to place something for exec
This is generic test module (samples/hw_breakpoint/data_breakpoint.ko)
which places watchpoint for bothe read/write.
Atleast watchpt should have triggered for Read right? I also tried
with othe functions like do_fork, vfs_read etc but no hit.
You'd need to place something for exec if you
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 03:55:42PM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> On 13 November 2013 20:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> >> 1. Placing watchpoint ( attr.bp_type = HW_BREAKPOINT_W |
> >> HW_BREAKPOINT_R) upon vfs_symlink symbol, but
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 03:55:42PM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
On 13 November 2013 20:01, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
1. Placing watchpoint ( attr.bp_type = HW_BREAKPOINT_W |
HW_BREAKPOINT_R) upon vfs_symlink
(2013/11/13 1:59), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:25:26 +0530
> Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> BTW, I'm currently trying a general housecleaning of __kprobes
>>> annotations. It may also have impact on your patch.
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/8/187
>> Hmm, we can help
On 13 November 2013 20:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> >>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
>> >>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
>> >>>
>> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> >>> I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
> >>> it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
> >>>
> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
> since
>
(2013/11/13 15:55), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
> since
> I'm fairly sure it won't work
(2013/11/13 15:55), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
since
I'm fairly sure it won't work as expected without some
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
since
I'm fairly sure it won't work
On 13 November 2013 20:01, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 06:55:33AM +, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
Sandeepa: I think you need to retry
(2013/11/13 1:59), Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:25:26 +0530
Sandeepa Prabhu sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org wrote:
BTW, I'm currently trying a general housecleaning of __kprobes
annotations. It may also have impact on your patch.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/8/187
Hmm, we
On 13 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
> Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
> since
> I'm fairly sure it
(2013/11/12 19:55), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> Thanks for steps, ARM64 ftrace patches are under review on arm mailing
> list, I can contact the (linaro) developer implementing ftrace on
> what's supported and then figure-out a way to test this concurrency of
> kprobes breakpoint and
On 12 November 2013 15:47, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
>> wrote:
>>> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>> with kprobes (from
(2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
> wrote:
>> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>> So if arm64
On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf,
(2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
So if
On 12 November 2013 15:47, Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2013/11/12 17:44), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
On 12 November 2013 12:57, Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint
(2013/11/12 19:55), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
Thanks for steps, ARM64 ftrace patches are under review on arm mailing
list, I can contact the (linaro) developer implementing ftrace on
what's supported and then figure-out a way to test this concurrency of
kprobes breakpoint and hardware breakpoint.
On 13 November 2013 12:25, Sandeepa Prabhu sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org wrote:
I'm unsure about arm64's debug feature behavior, what does happen when
it performs a single-step on sw-breakpoint?
Sandeepa: I think you need to retry Masami's test on the arm64 model,
since
I'm fairly sure it
(2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
work with it.
>>>
>>> Single-stepping on x86 is
>>> OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
>>> with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
>>> So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
>>> work with it.
>>
>> Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
>>
(2013/11/11 19:58), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:51:52AM +, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2013/11/11 16:54), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> In fact, how do you avoid a race with hardware breakpoints? E.g.,
>> somebody
>> places a hardware breakpoint on an instruction
(2013/11/11 19:58), Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:51:52AM +, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/11/11 16:54), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
In fact, how do you avoid a race with hardware breakpoints? E.g.,
somebody
places a hardware breakpoint on an instruction in the kernel for
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
work with it.
Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step behaviour on arm64 afaik. On
ARM, we have to
(2013/11/12 15:23), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
OK, I've ensured that the hw_breakpoint (from perf) can work
with kprobes (from ftrace) at the same address on x86.
So if arm64 already support hw_breakpoint on perf, kprobes should
work with it.
Single-stepping on x86 is different to the step
On 9 November 2013 14:40, Masami Hiramatsu
wrote:
> (2013/11/09 1:56), Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Sandeepa,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
>>> for ARM64.
>>
>> I think this series will
On 9 November 2013 14:40, Masami Hiramatsu
masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2013/11/09 1:56), Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Sandeepa,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
for ARM64.
I think this
(2013/11/09 1:56), Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Sandeepa,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
>> for ARM64.
>
> I think this series will conflict quite heavily with the jump_label series,
> since
(2013/11/09 1:56), Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Sandeepa,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:47PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
Add support for basic kernel probes(kprobes), jump probes (jprobes)
for ARM64.
I think this series will conflict quite heavily with the jump_label series,
since they both
34 matches
Mail list logo
