[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 5.15 merge window

From: Marco Elver
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 5.15 merge window
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:02:15 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/2.0.5 (2021-01-21)

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:46PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 12:13, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I really don't think this is QEMU related. The test fails are sort of
> > expected: we've seen KCSAN reports when the kernel boots and wanted to
> > fix them later.
> > However I have to admit that I wasn't aware of the KCSAN KUNIT tests,
> > and wouldn't have sent the s390 KCSAN enablement upstream if I would
> > have been aware of failing self tests.
> >
> > We'll fix them, and I let you know if things are supposed to work.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for making aware of this!
> Note: Set `CONFIG_KCSAN_REPORT_ONCE_IN_MS=100` (or smaller) instead of
> the default to make the test complete faster.
> The pattern I see from what Nathan reported is that all test cases
> that expect race reports don't observe them ("not ok" cases), and all
> those where no races are meant to be reported are fine ("ok" cases).
> Without actually seeing the log, I'm guessing that no races are
> reported at all, which is certainly not working as intended.

I repro'd, and the problem is part QEMU TCG and a minor problem with
stack_trace_save() on s390:

1. QEMU TCG doesn't seem to want to execute threads concurrently,
   resulting in no "value changes" being observed. This is probably just
   a limitation of TCG, and if run on a real CPU, shouldn't be a problem.
   On QEMU, most test cases will pass with 
   (There's one left that requires value changes to be observable)

2. stack_trace_save() is subtly broken on s390: it starts the trace in
   stack_trace_save() itself. This is incorrect, as the trace should
   start with the caller. We reported something similar to arm64, also
   because one of our sanitizer tests failed:

I noticed because stack traces like this: 

| read to 0x0000000001309128 of 8 bytes by task 49 on cpu 1:
|  print_report+0x48/0x6c0
|  kcsan_report_known_origin+0x112/0x200
|  kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x464/0x500
|  test_kernel_read+0x2a/0x40
|  access_thread+0x84/0xb0
|  kthread+0x3aa/0x3d0
|  __ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90
|  ret_from_fork+0xa/0x30

, which should not be generated because KCSAN uses stack_trace_save(..., 1)
in print_report().

I fixed it with the below, and now most tests pass. Note that, other
debugging tools may also report misleading stack traces without the
stack_trace_save() fix (e.g. certain KFENCE reports).

If you have a better solution for how to fix stack_trace_save() on s390,
please discard my patch.

-- Marco

------ >8 ------

From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:00:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] s390/stacktrace: do not include arch_stack_walk() in stack

Callers of stack_trace_save() expect that it does not include itself,
which attempts to exclude itself by skipping + 1. This contract is
broken if arch_stack_walk() still includes itself.

Fix it by skipping the initial entry in s390's arch_stack_walk().

Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
 arch/s390/kernel/stacktrace.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/s390/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 101477b3e263..47d1841af03e 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -16,11 +16,16 @@ void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, 
void *cookie,
        struct unwind_state state;
        unsigned long addr;
+       bool init = true;
        unwind_for_each_frame(&state, task, regs, 0) {
                addr = unwind_get_return_address(&state);
-               if (!addr || !consume_entry(cookie, addr))
+               if (!addr)
+                       break;
+               if (!init && !consume_entry(cookie, addr))
+               init = false;
@@ -29,6 +34,7 @@ int arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn 
        struct unwind_state state;
        unsigned long addr;
+       bool init = true;
        unwind_for_each_frame(&state, task, NULL, 0) {
                if (state.stack_info.type != STACK_TYPE_TASK)
@@ -50,8 +56,9 @@ int arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn 
                        return -EINVAL;
-               if (!consume_entry(cookie, addr))
+               if (!init && !consume_entry(cookie, addr))
                        return -EINVAL;
+               init = false;
        /* Check for stack corruption */

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]