DavidSpickett added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/MemoryTagManagerAArch64MTE.cpp:43
+
+ptrdiff_t MemoryTagManagerAArch64MTE::AddressDiff(lldb::addr_t addr1,
+ lldb::addr_t addr2) const {
----------------
omjavaid wrote:
> DavidSpickett wrote:
> > omjavaid wrote:
> > > I am a little apprehensive about this AddressDiff function. AArch64
> > > virtual address is either 48 bits or 52 bits. MTE start from 56th bit and
> > > I believe bits (48 - 55) will be either set zero (for user address) and
> > > set to one for kernel addresses.
> > > I am not sure if there is an interface available for us to know if VA is
> > > 48 or 52 bits. What do you think how should we manage this here.
> > I looked at this a while back and there is no user space way to tell what
> > size virtual address you have. You can assume at least 48 but then the rest
> > I think is handled by some backwards compatibility stuff that means you
> > don't have to care.
> >
> > What is an issue is this only ignores the tag bits, not the whole top byte.
> > This is the instruction the ptrdiff intrinsic emits:
> > ```
> > C6.2.317 SUBPS
> > Subtract Pointer, setting Flags subtracts the 56-bit address held in the
> > second source register from the 56-bit address
> > held in the first source register, sign-extends the result to 64-bits, and
> > writes the result to the destination register. It
> > updates the condition flags based on the result of the subtraction.
> > ```
> >
> > That assumes top byte ignore, so I should be doing the same here along with
> > the sign extension to handle the 0/1 fill.
> > (this might apply to a lot more than just this diff call too)
> hmm .. yes GDB also assumes 52 bit address for AArch64. Did you try reading
> kenel space address during testing and see what you get in that case may be
> stepping into a syscall (never tried it with LLDB) not sure if this is a must
> have for LLDB as its currently a user application debugger as far as AArch64
> is concerned.
>
> Even if this is 52 bits VA this function assumes bit 52-55 set to zero? This
> can also mean that by the time we get this address TBI interface would have
> cleaned it up for us?
>
> I think we should have a way to figure out significant address bits and clean
> up the rest. For now this needs no change but I guess I ll have to manage
> this in TBI support and provided and interface for significant address bit
> for a process.
>
>
I wasn't aware stepping into a syscall was a thing for lldb but I'll see what I
can find.
General TBI handling would solve some of this, still need to sign extend based
on bit 55 I think.
I'm going to change this to ignore the top byte always, so it'll work on a
PAC+MTE system. Then later we can make it use the "proper" TBI hooks.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97281/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97281
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
