lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [lkp-robot] [x86/asm] f5caf621ee: PANIC:double_fault
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:21:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:47 AM, kernel test robot
> <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ 10.587519] RIP: 0010:compat_sock_ioctl+0xfea/0x103e
> > [ 10.587974] RSP: 0000:0000000000277d78 EFLAGS: 00010283
> > [ 10.588448] RAX: 0000000000277d78 RBX: 0000000000008933 RCX: ffff8800141a8000
> > [ 10.589103] RDX: 0000000000000020 RSI: 00000000fffbea00 RDI: 00000000fffbea50
> > [ 10.589757] RBP: ffffc90000277e18 R08: fffbea50fffbea34 R09: ffffffff814a68c9
> > [ 10.590407] R10: ffffff9c00000002 R11: 00000000fffbea50 R12: 0000000000000000
> > [ 10.591056] R13: ffff880012c8c880 R14: 00000000fffbea50 R15: 00000000fffbea00
> > [ 10.591708] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff880019a00000(0063) knlGS:00000000f7fab9a0
> > [ 10.592446] CS: 0010 DS: 002b ES: 002b CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [ 10.592973] CR2: 0000000000277d68 CR3: 000000001807f000 CR4: 00000000000006b0
> > [ 10.593623] Call Trace:
> > [ 10.593858] Code: 02 0f ff 65 48 8b 04 25 80 d1 00 00 48 8b 80 28 25 00 00 48 83 e8 20 49 39 c7 77 34 89 e0 4c 89 f7 4c 89 fe ba 20 00 00 00 89 c4 <e8> b3 52 05 00 85 c0 74 22 eb 1a 4c 89 fa 89 de 4c 89 ef e8 c6
> > [ 10.595705] Kernel panic - not syncing: Machine halted.
>
> That is some _funky_ code, and yes, this may well be triggered by the
> inline asm changes.
>
> The code decodes to (after ignoring a few bytes at the beginning that
> were in the middle of an instruction)
>
> 0: 65 48 8b 04 25 80 d1 mov %gs:0xd180,%rax
> 7: 00 00
> 9: 48 8b 80 28 25 00 00 mov 0x2528(%rax),%rax
> 10: 48 83 e8 20 sub $0x20,%rax
> 14: 49 39 c7 cmp %rax,%r15
> 17: 77 34 ja 0x4d
> 19: 89 e0 mov %esp,%eax
> 1b: 4c 89 f7 mov %r14,%rdi
> 1e: 4c 89 fe mov %r15,%rsi
> 21: ba 20 00 00 00 mov $0x20,%edx
> 26: 89 c4 mov %eax,%esp
> 28:* e8 b3 52 05 00 callq 0x552e0 <-- trapping instruction
> 2d: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> 2f: 74 22 je 0x53
> 31: eb 1a jmp 0x4d
> 33: 4c 89 fa mov %r15,%rdx
> 36: 89 de mov %ebx,%esi
> 38: 4c 89 ef mov %r13,%rdi
>
> and it's worth noting that insane
>
> mov %eax,%esp
>
> instruction, and how RAX (and RSP) both have that bad value of
> 0000000000277d78 in them.
>
> So double fault is correct - we've corrupted the stack.
>
> And NOTE! It's reloading 32 bits, not 64 bits, and that's the basic bug there.
>
> I do note that when I build a kernel, I do see that pattern of
>
> movl $32, %edx
> call <something>
>
> and in every case it's a a call to a user copy. One is "call
> _copy_from_user", while the other ones are all the
> alternative_call_2() in copy_user_generic().
>
> Judging by the offset within the function, and judging by the bug,
> it's almost certainly that alternative_call_2() case.
>
> So it does sound like the clang fix has now introduced a gcc regression.
>
> And yes, in both cases it seems to be a compiler bug, but I'm not
> convinced it's a good idea to fix a clang bug by introducing a gcc
> one.
>
> Anyway, I think the real hint here is that 32-bit reload.
>
> Lookie here:
>
> register unsigned int __asm_call_sp asm("esp");
> #define ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT "+r" (__asm_call_sp)
>
> yeah, that's just garbage. It sure as hell should not be "unsigned int".
>
> Yeah. yeah, gcc shouldn't do that insane reload in the first place,
> but once that gcc bug has triggered, then the "unsigned int" is what
> makes the code go really bad.
>
> I bet that changing it to "unsigned long" will just fix things.
>
> Josh?

Agreed, changing it to "unsigned long" and "rsp" will probably fix it.

I had made it "unsigned int" because of a clang issue with "unsigned
long":

CC arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/vclock_gettime.o
In file included from arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/vclock_gettime.c:32:
In file included from arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/../vclock_gettime.c:15:
In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/vgtod.h:5:
In file included from ./include/linux/clocksource.h:12:
In file included from ./include/linux/timex.h:56:
In file included from ./include/uapi/linux/timex.h:56:
In file included from ./include/linux/time.h:5:
In file included from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:35:
In file included from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:50:
In file included from ./include/linux/preempt.h:10:
In file included from ./include/linux/list.h:8:
In file included from ./include/linux/kernel.h:10:
In file included from ./include/linux/bitops.h:37:
In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h:16:
In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h:9:
./arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h:142:42: error: register 'rsp' unsuitable for global register variables on this target
register unsigned long __asm_call_sp asm("rsp");

And I think we saw the same error in the realmode code.

So we may need to tweak the macro a bit.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 18:44    [W:0.101 / U:29.076 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site