lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v18 10/11] ARM: kprobes: check register usage for probed instruction.
On 2015/1/4 13:05, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Wang,
>
> (2014/12/29 13:07), Wang Nan wrote:
>> This patch utilizes previous introduced checker to check register usage
>> for probed ARM instruction and saves it in a mask. Futher patch will
>> use such information to avoid simuation or emulation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h | 12 ++++
>> arch/arm/probes/decode.c | 7 ++
>> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/actions-arm.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers-arm.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/checkers.h | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
>> index f0a1ee8..ee04067 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/probes.h
>> @@ -41,6 +41,18 @@ struct arch_probes_insn {
>> probes_insn_singlestep_t *insn_singlestep;
>> probes_insn_fn_t *insn_fn;
>> int stack_space;
>> +
>> + /* Use 2 bits for a register. One more bit for extension */
>
> Would you have any concrete idea for the extend bits? If not, we don't need
> it at this point. I think we don't need to care about future binary compatibility :)
> (moreover, if you need another bitflag, you can add another flag)
>

2 bits can describe the read/write direction of a register. With such information,
futher code is possible to utilize unused register to do some optimization. However,
as you pointed, it is not a very concrete idea.


>> +#define REG_NO_USE (0)
>> +#define REG_USE (1)
>> +#define REG_MASK (3)
>> +#define __register_usage_flag(n, f) ((f) << ((n) * 2))
>> +#define __register_usage_mask(n) (REG_MASK << ((n) * 2))
>> +#define __clean_register_flag(m, n) ((m) & (~(__register_usage_mask(n))))
>> +#define __set_register_flag(m, n, f) (__clean_register_flag(m, n) | __register_usage_flag(n, f))
>> +#define set_register_nouse(m, n) do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_NO_USE);} while(0)
>> +#define set_register_use(m, n) do {(m) = __set_register_flag(m, n, REG_USE);} while(0)
>> + int register_usage_mask;
>
> Is this a mask or flag? It seems a bit flag, if so, it should be "register_usage_flag".
>
> Thank you,
>

OK, I'll rename it.

Thanks to your comment.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-04 07:02    [W:0.060 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site