| Message ID | 20240315025736.404867-1-bgray@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1,1/3] powerpc/code-patching: Test patch_instructions() during boot | expand |
Le 15/03/2024 à 03:57, Benjamin Gray a écrit : > patch_instructions() introduces new behaviour with a couple of > variations. Test each case of > > * a repeated 32-bit instruction, > * a repeated 64-bit instruction (ppc64), and > * a copied sequence of instructions > > for both on a single page and when it crosses a page boundary. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init test_prefixed_patching(void) > check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected))); > } > > +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void) > +{ > + u32 code[256]; Build failure: CC arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c: In function 'test_multi_instruction_patching': arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c:439:1: error: the frame size of 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] 439 | } | ^ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:243: arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o] Error 1 I have to avoid big arrays on the stack. > + void *buf; > + u32 *addr32; > + u64 *addr64; > + ppc_inst_t inst64 = ppc_inst_prefix(OP_PREFIX << 26 | 3UL << 24, PPC_RAW_TRAP()); > + u32 inst32 = PPC_RAW_NOP(); > + > + buf = vzalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 8); > + check(buf); > + if (!buf) > + return; > + > + /* Test single page 32-bit repeated instruction */ > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE; > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); > + > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > + check(addr32[1] == inst32); > + check(addr32[2] == inst32); > + check(addr32[3] == inst32); > + check(addr32[4] == 0); > + > + /* Test single page 64-bit repeated instruction */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { > + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); > + > + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 2; > + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); > + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), code, 24, true)); > + > + check(addr64[0] == 0); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); > + check(addr64[4] == 0); > + } > + > + /* Test single page memcpy */ > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 3; > + > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) > + code[i] = i + 1; > + > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), false)); > + > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); > + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); > + > + /* Test multipage 32-bit repeated instruction */ > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 4 - 8; > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); > + > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > + check(addr32[1] == inst32); > + check(addr32[2] == inst32); > + check(addr32[3] == inst32); > + check(addr32[4] == 0); > + > + /* Test multipage 64-bit repeated instruction */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { > + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); > + > + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 5 - 8; > + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); > + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), code, 24, true)); > + > + check(addr64[0] == 0); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); > + check(addr64[4] == 0); > + } > + > + /* Test multipage memcpy */ > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 6 - 12; > + > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) > + code[i] = i + 1; > + > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), false)); > + > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); > + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); > + > + vfree(buf); > +} > + > static int __init test_code_patching(void) > { > pr_info("Running code patching self-tests ...\n"); > @@ -356,6 +447,7 @@ static int __init test_code_patching(void) > test_create_function_call(); > test_translate_branch(); > test_prefixed_patching(); > + test_multi_instruction_patching(); > > return 0; > }
On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 07:14 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 15/03/2024 à 03:57, Benjamin Gray a écrit : > > patch_instructions() introduces new behaviour with a couple of > > variations. Test each case of > > > > * a repeated 32-bit instruction, > > * a repeated 64-bit instruction (ppc64), and > > * a copied sequence of instructions > > > > for both on a single page and when it crosses a page boundary. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c | 92 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init > > test_prefixed_patching(void) > > check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected))); > > } > > > > +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void) > > +{ > > + u32 code[256]; > > Build failure: > > CC arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c: In function > 'test_multi_instruction_patching': > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c:439:1: error: the frame size of > 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > 439 | } > | ^ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:243: > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o] Error 1 > > > I have to avoid big arrays on the stack. All good, I can do that. I do run my patches through a couple of 32-bit configs, but I didn't see this error. Is this a standard config I should be testing with? > > > > + void *buf; > > + u32 *addr32; > > + u64 *addr64; > > + ppc_inst_t inst64 = ppc_inst_prefix(OP_PREFIX << 26 | 3UL > > << 24, PPC_RAW_TRAP()); > > + u32 inst32 = PPC_RAW_NOP(); > > + > > + buf = vzalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 8); > > + check(buf); > > + if (!buf) > > + return; > > + > > + /* Test single page 32-bit repeated instruction */ > > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE; > > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); > > + > > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > > + check(addr32[1] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[2] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[3] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[4] == 0); > > + > > + /* Test single page 64-bit repeated instruction */ > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { > > + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); > > + > > + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 2; > > + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); > > + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), > > code, 24, true)); > > + > > + check(addr64[0] == 0); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); > > + check(addr64[4] == 0); > > + } > > + > > + /* Test single page memcpy */ > > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 3; > > + > > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) > > + code[i] = i + 1; > > + > > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), > > false)); > > + > > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > > + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); > > + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); > > + > > + /* Test multipage 32-bit repeated instruction */ > > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 4 - 8; > > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); > > + > > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > > + check(addr32[1] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[2] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[3] == inst32); > > + check(addr32[4] == 0); > > + > > + /* Test multipage 64-bit repeated instruction */ > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { > > + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); > > + > > + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 5 - 8; > > + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); > > + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), > > code, 24, true)); > > + > > + check(addr64[0] == 0); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); > > + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 > > *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); > > + check(addr64[4] == 0); > > + } > > + > > + /* Test multipage memcpy */ > > + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 6 - 12; > > + > > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) > > + code[i] = i + 1; > > + > > + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), > > false)); > > + > > + check(addr32[0] == 0); > > + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); > > + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); > > + > > + vfree(buf); > > +} > > + > > static int __init test_code_patching(void) > > { > > pr_info("Running code patching self-tests ...\n"); > > @@ -356,6 +447,7 @@ static int __init test_code_patching(void) > > test_create_function_call(); > > test_translate_branch(); > > test_prefixed_patching(); > > + test_multi_instruction_patching(); > > > > return 0; > > }
On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 08:38 +1100, Benjamin Gray wrote: > On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 07:14 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > > > Le 15/03/2024 à 03:57, Benjamin Gray a écrit : > > > patch_instructions() introduces new behaviour with a couple of > > > variations. Test each case of > > > > > > * a repeated 32-bit instruction, > > > * a repeated 64-bit instruction (ppc64), and > > > * a copied sequence of instructions > > > > > > for both on a single page and when it crosses a page boundary. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c | 92 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > > b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > > index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c > > > @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init > > > test_prefixed_patching(void) > > > check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected))); > > > } > > > > > > +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void) > > > +{ > > > + u32 code[256]; > > > > Build failure: > > > > CC arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o > > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c: In function > > 'test_multi_instruction_patching': > > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c:439:1: error: the frame size > > of > > 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > > 439 | } > > | ^ > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:243: > > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o] Error 1 > > > > > > I have to avoid big arrays on the stack. > > All good, I can do that. > > I do run my patches through a couple of 32-bit configs, but I didn't > see this error. Is this a standard config I should be testing with? Specifically pmac32_defconfig and ppc44x_defconfig
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:55:02 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39)
X-Trend-IP-HD: ip=[9.192.253.14]helo={ozlabs.au.ibm.com}sender=(bgray@linux.ibm.com)recipient=<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu;mpe@ellerman.id.au;linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 08:38 +1100, Benjamin Gray wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 07:14 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > Le 15/03/2024 =C3=A0 03:57, Benjamin Gray a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
> > > patch_instructions() introduces new behaviour with a couple of
> > > variations. Test each case of
> > >=20
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 * a repeated 32-bit instruction,
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 * a repeated 64-bit instruction (ppc64), and
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 * a copied sequence of instructions
> > >=20
> > > for both on a single page and when it crosses a page boundary.
> > >=20
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > =C2=A0 arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c | 92
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > =C2=A0 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
> > >=20
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c
> > > b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c
> > > index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c
> > > @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init
> > > test_prefixed_patching(void)
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected)));
> > > =C2=A0 }
> > > =C2=A0=20
> > > +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 code[256];
> >=20
> > Build failure:
> >=20
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0 CC=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 arch/powerpc/lib/test-cod=
e-patching.o
> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c: In function=20
> > 'test_multi_instruction_patching':
> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c:439:1: error: the frame size
> > of
> > 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=3Dframe-larger-than=3D]
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0 439 | }
> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | ^
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:243:=20
> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o] Error 1
> >=20
> >=20
> > I have to avoid big arrays on the stack.
>=20
> All good, I can do that.
>=20
> I do run my patches through a couple of 32-bit configs, but I didn't
> see this error. Is this a standard config I should be testing with?
>=20
Specifically I build pmac32_defconfig and ppc44x_defconfig
Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 08:38 +1100, Benjamin Gray wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 07:14 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> > Le 15/03/2024 à 03:57, Benjamin Gray a écrit : >> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c >> > > b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c >> > > index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c >> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c >> > > @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init >> > > test_prefixed_patching(void) >> > > check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected))); >> > > } >> > > >> > > +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void) >> > > +{ >> > > + u32 code[256]; >> > >> > Build failure: >> > >> > CC arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o >> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c: In function >> > 'test_multi_instruction_patching': >> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c:439:1: error: the frame size >> > of >> > 1040 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] >> > 439 | } >> > | ^ >> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >> > make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:243: >> > arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.o] Error 1 >> > >> > >> > I have to avoid big arrays on the stack. >> >> All good, I can do that. >> >> I do run my patches through a couple of 32-bit configs, but I didn't >> see this error. Is this a standard config I should be testing with? > > Specifically pmac32_defconfig and ppc44x_defconfig Both of those have CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=1024, so should have caught this. But neither have CONFIG_CODE_PATCHING_SELFTEST=y, so I suspect that's why you didn't see it. I recommend ppc32_allmodconfig. cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c index c44823292f73..35a3756272df 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c @@ -347,6 +347,97 @@ static void __init test_prefixed_patching(void) check(!memcmp(iptr, expected, sizeof(expected))); } +static void __init test_multi_instruction_patching(void) +{ + u32 code[256]; + void *buf; + u32 *addr32; + u64 *addr64; + ppc_inst_t inst64 = ppc_inst_prefix(OP_PREFIX << 26 | 3UL << 24, PPC_RAW_TRAP()); + u32 inst32 = PPC_RAW_NOP(); + + buf = vzalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 8); + check(buf); + if (!buf) + return; + + /* Test single page 32-bit repeated instruction */ + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE; + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); + + check(addr32[0] == 0); + check(addr32[1] == inst32); + check(addr32[2] == inst32); + check(addr32[3] == inst32); + check(addr32[4] == 0); + + /* Test single page 64-bit repeated instruction */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); + + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 2; + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), code, 24, true)); + + check(addr64[0] == 0); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); + check(addr64[4] == 0); + } + + /* Test single page memcpy */ + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 3; + + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) + code[i] = i + 1; + + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), false)); + + check(addr32[0] == 0); + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); + + /* Test multipage 32-bit repeated instruction */ + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 4 - 8; + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, &inst32, 12, true)); + + check(addr32[0] == 0); + check(addr32[1] == inst32); + check(addr32[2] == inst32); + check(addr32[3] == inst32); + check(addr32[4] == 0); + + /* Test multipage 64-bit repeated instruction */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64)) { + check(ppc_inst_prefixed(inst64)); + + addr64 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 5 - 8; + ppc_inst_write(code, inst64); + check(!patch_instructions((u32 *)(addr64 + 1), code, 24, true)); + + check(addr64[0] == 0); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[1]), inst64)); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[2]), inst64)); + check(ppc_inst_equal(ppc_inst_read((u32 *)&addr64[3]), inst64)); + check(addr64[4] == 0); + } + + /* Test multipage memcpy */ + addr32 = buf + PAGE_SIZE * 6 - 12; + + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(code); i++) + code[i] = i + 1; + + check(!patch_instructions(addr32 + 1, code, sizeof(code), false)); + + check(addr32[0] == 0); + check(!memcmp(&addr32[1], code, sizeof(code))); + check(addr32[ARRAY_SIZE(code) + 1] == 0); + + vfree(buf); +} + static int __init test_code_patching(void) { pr_info("Running code patching self-tests ...\n"); @@ -356,6 +447,7 @@ static int __init test_code_patching(void) test_create_function_call(); test_translate_branch(); test_prefixed_patching(); + test_multi_instruction_patching(); return 0; }
patch_instructions() introduces new behaviour with a couple of variations. Test each case of * a repeated 32-bit instruction, * a repeated 64-bit instruction (ppc64), and * a copied sequence of instructions for both on a single page and when it crosses a page boundary. Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gray <bgray@linux.ibm.com> --- arch/powerpc/lib/test-code-patching.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)