From: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@gmx.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, josh@freedesktop.org,
dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] NULL pointer deref with rcutorture
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:31:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105203153.GC11244@alice> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090105201631.GO6959@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:01:45PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:56:55PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow!!! Am I reading this correctly? Does the above "call" instruction
> > > -really- call one byte into itself? That is what the hex for the x86
> > > instruction -looks- like it is doing, but I cannot see what would have
> > > possessed the compiler to generate this code.
> >
> > Compiler is gcc version 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)
>
> I am using 4.1.3, for whatever it is worth. (Ancient, I know!)
>
> > > When I compile on a 32-bit x86 machine, I don't see the above "call"
> > > instruction. Other than that, the code I see looks consistent.
> > >
> > > > 9f0: eb 1d jmp a0f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x27>
> > > > 9f2: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> > > > 9f9: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> > > > 9fe: 75 0a jne a0a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
> > > > a00: b8 e8 03 00 00 mov $0x3e8,%eax
> > > > a05: e8 fc ff ff ff call a06 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
> > > > a0a: e8 fc ff ff ff call a0b <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
> > > > a0f: 83 3d 6c 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x6c
> > > > ^---------- this line
> > >
> > > This looks like the first test in the "while" loop.
> > >
> > > > a16: 75 09 jne a21 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x39>
> > > > a18: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> > > > a1f: 75 09 jne a2a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x42>
> > > > a21: 83 3d 50 1a 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x1a50
> > > > a28: 74 c8 je 9f2 <rcu_stutter_wait+0xa>
> > > > a2a: 5d pop %ebp
> > > > a2b: c3 ret
> > >
> > > The corresponding C code is as follows:
> > >
> > > static void
> > > rcu_stutter_wait(void)
> > > {
> > > while ((stutter_pause_test || !rcutorture_runnable) && !fullstop) {
> > > if (rcutorture_runnable)
> > > schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > > else
> > > schedule_timeout_interruptible(round_jiffies_relative(HZ));
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > I don't see much opportunity for a page fault here... This is the
> > > binary I get when I compile it, though not as a module:
> > >
> > > 0000085a <rcu_stutter_wait>:
> > > 85a: 55 push %ebp
> > > 85b: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> > > 85d: eb 1d jmp 87c <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
> > > 85f: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> > > 866: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> > > 86b: 75 0a jne 877 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1d>
> > > 86d: b8 e8 03 00 00 mov $0x3e8,%eax
> > > 872: e8 fc ff ff ff call 873 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x19>
> > > 877: e8 fc ff ff ff call 878 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
> > > 87c: 83 3d 14 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x14
> > > 883: 75 09 jne 88e <rcu_stutter_wait+0x34>
> > > 885: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> > > 88c: 75 09 jne 897 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x3d>
> > > 88e: 83 3d 08 1a 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x1a08
> > > 895: 74 c8 je 85f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5>
> > > 897: 5d pop %ebp
> > > 898: c3 ret
> > >
> > > I confess, I am confused!!!
> >
> > on the other box with a different gcc version
> >
> > gcc version 4.3.2 (Ubuntu 4.3.2-1ubuntu11)
> >
> > d1902e90 is the start of rcu_stutter_wait
> >
> > [ 533.391719] d087e000 d1902e90
> > [ 533.392294] rcu-torture:--- Start of test: nreaders=2 nfakewriters=4 stat_interval=0 verbose=0 test_no_idle_hz=0 shuffle_interval=3 stutter=5 irqreader=1
> > [ 541.000139] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at d1902efd
> > [ 541.000423] IP: [<d1902efd>] 0xd1902efd
> > [ 541.000660] *pde = 0f08f067 *pte = 00000000
> > [ 541.000867] Oops: 0000 [#1] DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > [ 541.001126] last sysfs file: /sys/block/sda/size
> > [ 541.001246] Modules linked in: nfsd exportfs nfs lockd nfs_acl auth_rpcgss sunrpc ipv6 fuse unix [last unloaded: rcutorture]
> > [ 541.002235]
> > [ 541.002334] Pid: 5292, comm: rcu_torture_wri Not tainted (2.6.28 #84)
> > [ 541.002470] EIP: 0060:[<d1902efd>] EFLAGS: 00010296 CPU: 0
> > [ 541.002598] EIP is at 0xd1902efd
> > [ 541.002767] EAX: 00000000 EBX: d19073c0 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
> > [ 541.002900] ESI: 0000000a EDI: 00000000 EBP: c7b63fb8 ESP: c7b63fb8
> > [ 541.003033] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
> > [ 541.003160] Process rcu_torture_wri (pid: 5292, ti=c7b63000 task=c7b09710 task.ti=c7b63000)
> > [ 541.003400] Stack:
> > [ 541.003497] c7b63fd0 d19032c1 00000000 00000000 00000000 d1903200 c7b63fe0 c013d80a
> > [ 541.004022] c013d7d0 00000000 00000000 c0103cf3 cef6ee70 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > [ 541.004022] 00000201 000004b4
> > [ 541.004022] Call Trace:
> > [ 541.004022] [<c013d80a>] ? kthread+0x3a/0x70
> > [ 541.004022] [<c013d7d0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x70
> > [ 541.004022] [<c0103cf3>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x14
> > [ 541.004022] Code: Bad EIP value.
> > [ 541.004022] EIP: [<d1902efd>] 0xd1902efd SS:ESP 0068:c7b63fb8
> > [ 541.004022] ---[ end trace cb3b10c2bb94b4e3 ]---
> >
> >
> > 00000e90 <rcu_stutter_wait>:
> > e90: 55 push %ebp
> > e91: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> > e93: 90 nop
> > e94: 8d 74 26 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
> > e98: a1 98 00 00 00 mov 0x98,%eax
> > e9d: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> > e9f: 75 09 jne eaa <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1a>
> > ea1: a1 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%eax
> > ea6: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> > ea8: 75 36 jne ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
> > eaa: a1 88 1a 00 00 mov 0x1a88,%eax
> > eaf: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> > eb1: 75 2d jne ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
> > eb3: 8b 15 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%edx
> > eb9: 85 d2 test %edx,%edx
> > ebb: 74 2b je ee8 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x58>
> > ebd: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> > ec2: e8 fc ff ff ff call ec3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x33>
> > ec7: a1 98 00 00 00 mov 0x98,%eax
> > ecc: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> > ece: 74 d1 je ea1 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x11>
> > ed0: a1 88 1a 00 00 mov 0x1a88,%eax
> > ed5: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> > ed7: 74 da je eb3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
> > ed9: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
> > ee0: 5d pop %ebp
> > ee1: c3 ret
> > ee2: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
> > ee8: b8 fa 00 00 00 mov $0xfa,%eax
> > eed: e8 fc ff ff ff call eee <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5e>
>
> Here we are again calling one byte into the current instruction!!!
>
> Or am I misinterpreting this code?
>
> > ef2: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
> > ef8: e8 fc ff ff ff call ef9 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x69>
> > efd: 8d 76 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
> > ^------------- here
> >
> > This one looks more like it can explain a page fault
>
> I don't understand why there are indirections in the assembly given the
> C code for rcu_stutter_wait().
>
> > f00: eb 96 jmp e98 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x8>
> > f02: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
> > f09: 8d bc 27 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%edi,%eiz,1),%edi
ok, after trying to find out if the ubuntu gccs are broken, i stumbled
upon this:
http://forum.soft32.com/linux/Strange-problem-disassembling-shared-lib-ftopict439936.html
Seems the difference is that you dont compile it as a module and the
jump is perfectly normal, it gets overwritten when the stuff is loaded
objdump -dr gives me
00000e90 <rcu_stutter_wait>:
e90: 55 push %ebp
e91: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
e93: 90 nop
e94: 8d 74 26 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
e98: a1 98 00 00 00 mov 0x98,%eax
e99: R_386_32 .bss
e9d: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
e9f: 75 09 jne eaa <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1a>
ea1: a1 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%eax
ea2: R_386_32 rcutorture_runnable
ea6: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
ea8: 75 36 jne ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
eaa: a1 88 1a 00 00 mov 0x1a88,%eax
eab: R_386_32 .bss
eaf: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
eb1: 75 2d jne ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
eb3: 8b 15 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%edx
eb5: R_386_32 rcutorture_runnable
eb9: 85 d2 test %edx,%edx
ebb: 74 2b je ee8 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x58>
ebd: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
ec2: e8 fc ff ff ff call ec3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x33>
ec3: R_386_PC32 schedule_timeout_interruptible
ec7: a1 98 00 00 00 mov 0x98,%eax
ec8: R_386_32 .bss
ecc: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
ece: 74 d1 je ea1 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x11>
ed0: a1 88 1a 00 00 mov 0x1a88,%eax
ed1: R_386_32 .bss
ed5: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
ed7: 74 da je eb3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
ed9: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
ee0: 5d pop %ebp
ee1: c3 ret
ee2: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
ee8: b8 fa 00 00 00 mov $0xfa,%eax
eed: e8 fc ff ff ff call eee <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5e>
eee: R_386_PC32 round_jiffies_relative
ef2: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
ef8: e8 fc ff ff ff call ef9 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x69>
ef9: R_386_PC32 schedule_timeout_interruptible
efd: 8d 76 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
here is the deref ------------------------^
f00: eb 96 jmp e98 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x8>
f02: 8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
f09: 8d bc 27 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%edi,%eiz,1),%edi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-05 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-02 11:18 [BUG] NULL pointer deref with rcutorture Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-02 17:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-02 18:53 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2009-01-02 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-02 23:12 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-03 1:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20090103094003.GA6149@alice>
[not found] ` <20090104013254.GG6958@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2009-01-04 14:57 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-04 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-04 23:38 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-05 2:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 12:14 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-05 18:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 18:56 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-05 19:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:01 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-05 20:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:31 ` Eric Sesterhenn [this message]
2009-01-05 22:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 0:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 2:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 7:47 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-06 12:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-07 19:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-07 20:19 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-07 22:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-07 22:34 ` Eric Sesterhenn
2009-01-07 22:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090105203153.GC11244@alice \
--to=snakebyte@gmx.de \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@freedesktop.org \
--cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.