Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 24, 2022. It is now read-only.

Support user thread mode in hard fault handler #77

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

crawford
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@japaric
Copy link
Member

japaric commented Jun 20, 2018

Thanks for the PR, @crawford. I more or less understand what the assembly routine is doing but could you add a comment indicating with text (or the equivalent Rust code) what the instructions are doing and another comment mentioning the difference between the MSP and the PSP (a link to ARM docs is fine)?

bors try

^ to check if this works on ARMv6-M

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 20, 2018

try

Build failed

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I've been busy at work. I'll fix up this PR.

@crawford crawford changed the title Support user threading in hard fault handler Support user thread mode in hard fault handler Jun 22, 2018
@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

crawford commented Jun 22, 2018

bors try

EDIT: It was worth a shot.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 22, 2018

🔒 Permission denied

Existing reviewers: click here to make crawford a reviewer

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

I switched to a slower implementation that will work on ARM v6 and v7. We could use two different implementations, but I don't think it's worth the complexity.

hardfault.s Outdated
HardFault:
movs r0, #4
mov r1, lr
tst r0, r1 // Test bit[3] of EXC_RETURN to determine thread mode
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this say "bit[2]"? Bit positions start at 0 to have bitmasks match 1 << $pos (bit 0 -> mask = (1 << 0); bit 1 -> mask = (1 << 1); etc.)


I think you can use bmi instead of tst to use less registers. For example, this code

#![no_std]
#![feature(asm)]
#![feature(core_intrinsics)]

use core::intrinsics;

pub fn foo(x: u32) {
    unsafe {
        if x & (1 << 2) == 0 {
            asm!("mrs r0, MSP
                  bl UserHardFault" :::: "volatile");
            intrinsics::unreachable();
        } else {
            asm!("mrs r0, PSP
                  bl UserHardFault" :::: "volatile");
            intrinsics::unreachable();
        }
    }
}

produces this machine code when compiled with optimizations:

00000000 <foo::foo>:
   0:   0740            lsls    r0, r0, #29
   2:   d404            bmi.n   e <foo::foo+0xe>
   4:   f3ef 8008       mrs     r0, MSP
   8:   f7ff fffe       bl      0 <UserHardFault>
   c:   defe            udf     #254    ; 0xfe
   e:   f3ef 8009       mrs     r0, PSP
  12:   f7ff fffe       bl      0 <UserHardFault>
  16:   defe            udf     #254    ; 0xfe

The defe udf instruction can be omitted.

@japaric
Copy link
Member

japaric commented Jun 22, 2018

bors try

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 22, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jun 22, 2018

try

Build failed

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated. I haven't tested this implementation on real hardware though. I'll be able to test it tomorrow.

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

This looks good on the Cortex M4 I tested. While attempting to write to address 0x3000_0000, I hit a hardfault:

(gdb) print/x *frame
$3 = cortex_m_rt::ExceptionFrame {r0: 0x30000000, r1: 0x0, r2: 0x0, r3: 0xec, r12: 0xec, lr: 0x24073, pc: 0x11882, xpsr: 0x41000000}

@japaric
Copy link
Member

japaric commented Aug 3, 2018

It appears this still doesn't compile for ARMv6-M when using clang:

running: "clang" "-O0" "-ffunction-sections" "-fdata-sections" "-fPIC" "-g" "--target=thumbv6m-none-eabi" "-Wall" "-Wextra" "-o" "/home/japaric/rust/cortex-m-rt/target/thumbv6m-none-eabi/debug/build/cortex-m-rt-2722f9a967a9ffc0/out/hardfault.o" "-c" "hardfault.s"
cargo:warning=clang-6.0: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-ffunction-sections' [-Wunused-command-line-argument]
cargo:warning=clang-6.0: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-fdata-sections' [-Wunused-command-line-argument]
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:4:3: error: invalid instruction, any one of the following would fix this:
cargo:warning=  movs r0, lr
cargo:warning=  ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:4:12: note: operand must be an immediate in the range [0,255]
cargo:warning=  movs r0, lr
cargo:warning=           ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:4:12: note: operand must be a register in range [r0, r7]
cargo:warning=  movs r0, lr
cargo:warning=           ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:5:3: error: invalid instruction, any one of the following would fix this:
cargo:warning=  lsl  r0, r0, #29     // Test bit[2] of EXC_RETURN to determine thread mode
cargo:warning=  ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:5:3: note: instruction requires: thumb2
cargo:warning=  lsl  r0, r0, #29     // Test bit[2] of EXC_RETURN to determine thread mode
cargo:warning=  ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:5:3: note: no flag-preserving variant of this instruction available
cargo:warning=  lsl  r0, r0, #29     // Test bit[2] of EXC_RETURN to determine thread mode
cargo:warning=  ^
cargo:warning=hardfault.s:5:16: note: operand must be a register in range [r0, r7]
cargo:warning=  lsl  r0, r0, #29     // Test bit[2] of EXC_RETURN to determine thread mode
cargo:warning=               ^
exit code: 1

bors try

@japaric
Copy link
Member

japaric commented Aug 3, 2018

bors r+

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2018
77: Support user thread mode in hard fault handler r=japaric a=crawford



Co-authored-by: Alex Crawford <alex@acrawford.com>
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Aug 3, 2018

Build failed

@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

crawford commented Aug 3, 2018

Shoot. I hadn't noticed the individual failures were different. I'm on vacation at the moment, but I can fix this in a couple days.

@japaric
Copy link
Member

japaric commented Sep 3, 2018

Hello @crawford! We haven't heard from you in a while so I'm going to close this PR to clear up the PR queue.

Feel free to open a new rebased PR and we'll be happy to review it!

@japaric japaric closed this Sep 3, 2018
@crawford
Copy link
Contributor Author

crawford commented Sep 3, 2018

No problem. Sorry I went AWOL.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants