| Message ID | 1354762999-4135-3-git-send-email-lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, > > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > /* reset local breakpoints */ > - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { > - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { > + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { > + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { > + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { > hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); > } > } This is still wrong. PS: if you could put the 'v2'/'v3' etc marking in the [PATCH] tags for the subjects of all the patch emails and not just the cover letter that would be helpful. git format-patch's --subject-prefix='PATCH v3' option should do this for you. -- PMM
在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c > > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c > > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, > > > > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > > /* reset local breakpoints */ > > - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { > > - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > > - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { > > + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { > > + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { > > + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { > > hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); > > } > > } > > This is still wrong. do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. Thanks! > PS: if you could put the 'v2'/'v3' etc marking in the [PATCH] > tags for the subjects of all the patch emails and not just the > cover letter that would be helpful. git format-patch's > --subject-prefix='PATCH v3' option should do this for you. > > -- PMM
On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c >> > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c >> > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, >> > >> > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >> > /* reset local breakpoints */ >> > - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { >> > - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >> > - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { >> > + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { >> > + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { >> > + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { >> > hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); >> > } >> > } >> >> This is still wrong. > > do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? > maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. > if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. -- PMM
在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > >> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c > >> > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c > >> > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, > >> > > >> > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > >> > /* reset local breakpoints */ > >> > - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { > >> > - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > >> > - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { > >> > + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { > >> > + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { > >> > + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { > >> > hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); > >> > } > >> > } > >> > >> This is still wrong. > > > > do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? > > maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. > > if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. > > I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this > patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking > for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your > change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version > of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. why broke? this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? > > -- PMM
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 05:27:44PM +0800, li guang wrote: > 在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > > On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > > >> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > >> > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > >> > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c > > >> > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c > > >> > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, > > >> > > > >> > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > > >> > /* reset local breakpoints */ > > >> > - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { > > >> > - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > > >> > - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { > > >> > + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { > > >> > + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { > > >> > + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { > > >> > hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); > > >> > } > > >> > } > > >> > > >> This is still wrong. > > > > > > do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? > > > maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. > > > if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. > > > > I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this > > patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking > > for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your > > change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version > > of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. > > why broke? > this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, > so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? I don't read this patch from the starting. But Peter, do you mean the return value matters here? I see the original version compares the return value with 0x1, do you mean we *need* this comparsion here? Regards, chenwj
Am 06.12.2012 10:27, schrieb li guang: > 在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >> On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >>>> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>> --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c >>>>> +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c >>>>> @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, >>>>> >>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >>>>> /* reset local breakpoints */ >>>>> - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { >>>>> - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >>>>> - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { >>>>> + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { >>>>> + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { >>>>> hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>> >>>> This is still wrong. >>> >>> do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? >>> maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. >>> if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. >> >> I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this >> patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking >> for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your >> change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version >> of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. > > why broke? > this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, > so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? The code comment specifically says "reset local breakpoints". IIUC you are also resetting global breakpoints, which you shouldn't. Personally I'd be fine with a hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(). Regards, Andreas
On 6 December 2012 09:27, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > 在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >> I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this >> patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking >> for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your >> change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version >> of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. > > why broke? > this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, > so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? See what we said last time around: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-12/msg00456.html Most of the callers to hw_breakpoint_enabled() are only asking "is this enabled at all?". This callsite is asking "is this breakpoint enabled as a local breakpoint and only as a local breakpoint?". -- PMM
On 6 December 2012 09:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 06.12.2012 10:27, schrieb li guang: >> 在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >>> On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： >>>>> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>>> --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c >>>>>> +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c >>>>>> @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, >>>>>> >>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >>>>>> /* reset local breakpoints */ >>>>>> - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { >>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >>>>>> - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { >>>>>> + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { >>>>>> + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { >>>>>> hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> This is still wrong. >>>> >>>> do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? >>>> maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. >>>> if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. >>> >>> I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this >>> patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking >>> for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your >>> change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version >>> of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. >> >> why broke? >> this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, >> so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? > > The code comment specifically says "reset local breakpoints". IIUC you > are also resetting global breakpoints, which you shouldn't. > > Personally I'd be fine with a hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(). The check you want is (hw_local_breakpoint_enabled() && !hw_global_breakpoint_enabled()) if you're going to do it like that. [We don't want to take out the bp if it was enabled globally as well as locally.] -- PMM
Am 06.12.2012 10:48, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 6 December 2012 09:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >> The code comment specifically says "reset local breakpoints". IIUC you >> are also resetting global breakpoints, which you shouldn't. >> >> Personally I'd be fine with a hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(). > > The check you want is > (hw_local_breakpoint_enabled() && !hw_global_breakpoint_enabled()) > > if you're going to do it like that. [We don't want to take out the > bp if it was enabled globally as well as locally.] If it doesn't exist already (I'm assuming not, otherwise it could've been used) we could simply define the "local" function to return false if global is enabled. :) But maybe that's too clever. Andreas
在 2012-12-06四的 09:48 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > On 6 December 2012 09:36, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > > Am 06.12.2012 10:27, schrieb li guang: > >> 在 2012-12-06四的 09:23 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > >>> On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>>> 在 2012-12-06四的 08:54 +0000，Peter Maydell写道： > >>>>> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>>>> --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c > >>>>>> +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c > >>>>>> @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > >>>>>> /* reset local breakpoints */ > >>>>>> - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { > >>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > >>>>>> - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { > >>>>>> + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { > >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { > >>>>>> + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { > >>>>>> hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> This is still wrong. > >>>> > >>>> do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others? > >>>> maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'. > >>>> if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch. > >>> > >>> I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this > >>> patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking > >>> for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your > >>> change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version > >>> of the patch there is still exactly the same problem. > >> > >> why broke? > >> this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable, > >> so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem? > > > > The code comment specifically says "reset local breakpoints". IIUC you > > are also resetting global breakpoints, which you shouldn't. > > > > Personally I'd be fine with a hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(). > > The check you want is > (hw_local_breakpoint_enabled() && !hw_global_breakpoint_enabled()) > Yes, it's the right choice. Thanks! > if you're going to do it like that. [We don't want to take out the > bp if it was enabled globally as well as locally.] > > -- PMM >
diff --git a/target-i386/helper.c b/target-i386/helper.c index bf206cf..62746c5 100644 --- a/target-i386/helper.c +++ b/target-i386/helper.c @@ -966,30 +966,33 @@ hwaddr cpu_get_phys_page_debug(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong addr) void hw_breakpoint_insert(CPUX86State *env, int index) { - int type, err = 0; + int type = 0, err = 0; switch (hw_breakpoint_type(env->dr[7], index)) { - case 0: - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)) + case DR7_TYPE_BP_INST: + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)) { err = cpu_breakpoint_insert(env, env->dr[index], BP_CPU, &env->cpu_breakpoint[index]); + } break; - case 1: + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_WR: type = BP_CPU | BP_MEM_WRITE; - goto insert_wp; - case 2: - /* No support for I/O watchpoints yet */ break; - case 3: + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_RW: type = BP_CPU | BP_MEM_ACCESS; - insert_wp: + break; + case DR7_TYPE_IO_RW: + /* No support for I/O watchpoints yet */ + break; + } + if (type) { err = cpu_watchpoint_insert(env, env->dr[index], hw_breakpoint_len(env->dr[7], index), type, &env->cpu_watchpoint[index]); - break; } - if (err) + if (err) { env->cpu_breakpoint[index] = NULL; + } } void hw_breakpoint_remove(CPUX86State *env, int index) @@ -997,15 +1000,16 @@ void hw_breakpoint_remove(CPUX86State *env, int index) if (!env->cpu_breakpoint[index]) return; switch (hw_breakpoint_type(env->dr[7], index)) { - case 0: - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)) + case DR7_TYPE_BP_INST: + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)) { cpu_breakpoint_remove_by_ref(env, env->cpu_breakpoint[index]); + } break; - case 1: - case 3: + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_RW: + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_WR: cpu_watchpoint_remove_by_ref(env, env->cpu_watchpoint[index]); break; - case 2: + case DR7_TYPE_IO_RW: /* No support for I/O watchpoints yet */ break; } @@ -1014,22 +1018,42 @@ void hw_breakpoint_remove(CPUX86State *env, int index) int check_hw_breakpoints(CPUX86State *env, int force_dr6_update) { target_ulong dr6; - int reg, type; + int index; int hit_enabled = 0; + bool bp_match = false; + bool wp_match = false; dr6 = env->dr[6] & ~0xf; - for (reg = 0; reg < 4; reg++) { - type = hw_breakpoint_type(env->dr[7], reg); - if ((type == 0 && env->dr[reg] == env->eip) || - ((type & 1) && env->cpu_watchpoint[reg] && - (env->cpu_watchpoint[reg]->flags & BP_WATCHPOINT_HIT))) { - dr6 |= 1 << reg; - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], reg)) + for (index = 0; index < DR7_MAX_BP; index++) { + switch (hw_breakpoint_type(env->dr[7], index)) { + case DR7_TYPE_BP_INST: + if (env->dr[index] == env->eip) { + bp_match = true; + } + break; + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_WR: + case DR7_TYPE_DATA_RW: + if (env->cpu_watchpoint[index] && + env->cpu_watchpoint[index]->flags & BP_WATCHPOINT_HIT) { + wp_match = true; + } + break; + case DR7_TYPE_IO_RW: + break; + } + if (bp_match || wp_match) { + dr6 |= 1 << index; + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)) { hit_enabled = 1; + } + bp_match = false; + wp_match = false; } } - if (hit_enabled || force_dr6_update) + if (hit_enabled || force_dr6_update) { env->dr[6] = dr6; + } + return hit_enabled; } diff --git a/target-i386/machine.c b/target-i386/machine.c index 4771508..67131a4 100644 --- a/target-i386/machine.c +++ b/target-i386/machine.c @@ -265,10 +265,11 @@ static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id) cpu_breakpoint_remove_all(env, BP_CPU); cpu_watchpoint_remove_all(env, BP_CPU); - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { hw_breakpoint_insert(env, i); - + } tlb_flush(env, 1); + return 0; } diff --git a/target-i386/misc_helper.c b/target-i386/misc_helper.c index a020379..5ee0863 100644 --- a/target-i386/misc_helper.c +++ b/target-i386/misc_helper.c @@ -197,11 +197,11 @@ void helper_movl_drN_T0(CPUX86State *env, int reg, target_ulong t0) env->dr[reg] = t0; hw_breakpoint_insert(env, reg); } else if (reg == 7) { - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); } env->dr[7] = t0; - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { hw_breakpoint_insert(env, i); } } else { diff --git a/target-i386/seg_helper.c b/target-i386/seg_helper.c index ff93374..16d489a 100644 --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss_selector, #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY /* reset local breakpoints */ - if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) { - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { - if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) { + if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) { + for (i = 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) { + if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) { hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i); } }
Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- target-i386/helper.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- target-i386/machine.c | 5 ++- target-i386/misc_helper.c | 4 +- target-i386/seg_helper.c | 6 ++-- 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)