From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:15:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004221538.sw2u5pc32pysfetf@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFy9r2GAFenswm92sdz0qnbazPcofm668JqYrxEVFALfZA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4815 bytes --]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:30:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I compiled the same kernel with a similar version of GCC. It turns out
> > that GCC *does* create unaligned stacks with frame pointers enabled:
>
> Christ. What a piece of crap.
>
> It doesn't even seem to make any sense. Spill room for the "u16
> item_count" and "u8 move_type"?
I didn't have the patience to try to figure out what it thought it was
trying to do. But it doesn't even use %esp in the function, so it's
obviously just pointless code. Pasting the full function below.
> That function is disgusting anyway (the switch really should be
> outside the loop, not inside it), but whatever. No excuse for that
> kind of garbage code generation.
>
> > This was a leaf function. For no apparent reason, GCC 4.8 decided to
> > subtract 3 from the stack pointer in the prologue.
>
> Can you make objtool warn about unaligned stack pointer additions like that?
That should be easy to add, and a good idea to check for. I don't look
forward to the continual 0-day bot complaints, so hopefully we can
figure out a way to fix them (or deprecate GCC 4!), or at least disable
the checking for older versions of GCC with the known issue.
> Maybe it only happens in very limited cases, and we can find a pattern
> to why gcc generates garbage code like that? And perhaps even how to
> just avoid it?
Just from grepping the objdump I can tell it happened in several
different functions. For example all the following functions have 'sub
$0x1,%esp':
match_wildcard()
pci_vpd_find_tag()
strspn()
sub $0x2,%esp:
rgb_foreground()
scsi_extd_sense_format()
sub $0x5,%esp:
iot2040_rs485_config()
sub $0x6,%esp:
x86_match_cpu()
clear_buffer_attributes()
The only thing I can see they have in common is that they're leaf
functions. In all cases the stack pointer is otherwise unused.
The problem seemed to go away when I built the same kernel with GCC 5.3.
FYI, here's the full function (4.14-rc3 compiled with RHEL GCC 4.8.3-9).
Config is attached.
c124a388 <acpi_rs_move_data>:
c124a388: 55 push %ebp
c124a389: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
c124a38b: 57 push %edi
c124a38c: 56 push %esi
c124a38d: 89 d6 mov %edx,%esi
c124a38f: 53 push %ebx
c124a390: 31 db xor %ebx,%ebx
c124a392: 83 ec 03 sub $0x3,%esp
c124a395: 8a 55 08 mov 0x8(%ebp),%dl
c124a398: 66 89 4d f2 mov %cx,-0xe(%ebp)
c124a39c: 83 ea 15 sub $0x15,%edx
c124a39f: 88 55 f1 mov %dl,-0xf(%ebp)
c124a3a2: 0f b6 fa movzbl %dl,%edi
c124a3a5: 0f b7 4d f2 movzwl -0xe(%ebp),%ecx
c124a3a9: 39 cb cmp %ecx,%ebx
c124a3ab: 73 36 jae c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3ad: 80 7d f1 07 cmpb $0x7,-0xf(%ebp)
c124a3b1: 77 30 ja c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3b3: ff 24 bd cc e9 36 c1 jmp *-0x3ec91634(,%edi,4)
c124a3b6: R_386_32 .rodata
c124a3ba: 89 c7 mov %eax,%edi
c124a3bc: f3 a4 rep movsb %ds:(%esi),%es:(%edi)
c124a3be: eb 23 jmp c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3c0: 66 8b 0c 5e mov (%esi,%ebx,2),%cx
c124a3c4: 66 89 0c 58 mov %cx,(%eax,%ebx,2)
c124a3c8: eb 16 jmp c124a3e0 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x58>
c124a3ca: 8b 0c 9e mov (%esi,%ebx,4),%ecx
c124a3cd: 89 0c 98 mov %ecx,(%eax,%ebx,4)
c124a3d0: eb 0e jmp c124a3e0 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x58>
c124a3d2: 8b 14 de mov (%esi,%ebx,8),%edx
c124a3d5: 8b 4c de 04 mov 0x4(%esi,%ebx,8),%ecx
c124a3d9: 89 14 d8 mov %edx,(%eax,%ebx,8)
c124a3dc: 89 4c d8 04 mov %ecx,0x4(%eax,%ebx,8)
c124a3e0: 43 inc %ebx
c124a3e1: eb c2 jmp c124a3a5 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x1d>
c124a3e3: 83 c4 03 add $0x3,%esp
c124a3e6: 5b pop %ebx
c124a3e7: 5e pop %esi
c124a3e8: 5f pop %edi
c124a3e9: 5d pop %ebp
c124a3ea: c3 ret
[-- Attachment #2: config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gunzip, Size: 15847 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKP <lkp@01.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:15:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004221538.sw2u5pc32pysfetf@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFy9r2GAFenswm92sdz0qnbazPcofm668JqYrxEVFALfZA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4710 bytes --]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:30:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I compiled the same kernel with a similar version of GCC. It turns out
> > that GCC *does* create unaligned stacks with frame pointers enabled:
>
> Christ. What a piece of crap.
>
> It doesn't even seem to make any sense. Spill room for the "u16
> item_count" and "u8 move_type"?
I didn't have the patience to try to figure out what it thought it was
trying to do. But it doesn't even use %esp in the function, so it's
obviously just pointless code. Pasting the full function below.
> That function is disgusting anyway (the switch really should be
> outside the loop, not inside it), but whatever. No excuse for that
> kind of garbage code generation.
>
> > This was a leaf function. For no apparent reason, GCC 4.8 decided to
> > subtract 3 from the stack pointer in the prologue.
>
> Can you make objtool warn about unaligned stack pointer additions like that?
That should be easy to add, and a good idea to check for. I don't look
forward to the continual 0-day bot complaints, so hopefully we can
figure out a way to fix them (or deprecate GCC 4!), or at least disable
the checking for older versions of GCC with the known issue.
> Maybe it only happens in very limited cases, and we can find a pattern
> to why gcc generates garbage code like that? And perhaps even how to
> just avoid it?
Just from grepping the objdump I can tell it happened in several
different functions. For example all the following functions have 'sub
$0x1,%esp':
match_wildcard()
pci_vpd_find_tag()
strspn()
sub $0x2,%esp:
rgb_foreground()
scsi_extd_sense_format()
sub $0x5,%esp:
iot2040_rs485_config()
sub $0x6,%esp:
x86_match_cpu()
clear_buffer_attributes()
The only thing I can see they have in common is that they're leaf
functions. In all cases the stack pointer is otherwise unused.
The problem seemed to go away when I built the same kernel with GCC 5.3.
FYI, here's the full function (4.14-rc3 compiled with RHEL GCC 4.8.3-9).
Config is attached.
c124a388 <acpi_rs_move_data>:
c124a388: 55 push %ebp
c124a389: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
c124a38b: 57 push %edi
c124a38c: 56 push %esi
c124a38d: 89 d6 mov %edx,%esi
c124a38f: 53 push %ebx
c124a390: 31 db xor %ebx,%ebx
c124a392: 83 ec 03 sub $0x3,%esp
c124a395: 8a 55 08 mov 0x8(%ebp),%dl
c124a398: 66 89 4d f2 mov %cx,-0xe(%ebp)
c124a39c: 83 ea 15 sub $0x15,%edx
c124a39f: 88 55 f1 mov %dl,-0xf(%ebp)
c124a3a2: 0f b6 fa movzbl %dl,%edi
c124a3a5: 0f b7 4d f2 movzwl -0xe(%ebp),%ecx
c124a3a9: 39 cb cmp %ecx,%ebx
c124a3ab: 73 36 jae c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3ad: 80 7d f1 07 cmpb $0x7,-0xf(%ebp)
c124a3b1: 77 30 ja c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3b3: ff 24 bd cc e9 36 c1 jmp *-0x3ec91634(,%edi,4)
c124a3b6: R_386_32 .rodata
c124a3ba: 89 c7 mov %eax,%edi
c124a3bc: f3 a4 rep movsb %ds:(%esi),%es:(%edi)
c124a3be: eb 23 jmp c124a3e3 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x5b>
c124a3c0: 66 8b 0c 5e mov (%esi,%ebx,2),%cx
c124a3c4: 66 89 0c 58 mov %cx,(%eax,%ebx,2)
c124a3c8: eb 16 jmp c124a3e0 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x58>
c124a3ca: 8b 0c 9e mov (%esi,%ebx,4),%ecx
c124a3cd: 89 0c 98 mov %ecx,(%eax,%ebx,4)
c124a3d0: eb 0e jmp c124a3e0 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x58>
c124a3d2: 8b 14 de mov (%esi,%ebx,8),%edx
c124a3d5: 8b 4c de 04 mov 0x4(%esi,%ebx,8),%ecx
c124a3d9: 89 14 d8 mov %edx,(%eax,%ebx,8)
c124a3dc: 89 4c d8 04 mov %ecx,0x4(%eax,%ebx,8)
c124a3e0: 43 inc %ebx
c124a3e1: eb c2 jmp c124a3a5 <acpi_rs_move_data+0x1d>
c124a3e3: 83 c4 03 add $0x3,%esp
c124a3e6: 5b pop %ebx
c124a3e7: 5e pop %esi
c124a3e8: 5f pop %edi
c124a3e9: 5d pop %ebp
c124a3ea: c3 ret
[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gunzip, Size: 15847 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-04 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-03 14:06 [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2 Fengguang Wu
2017-10-03 14:06 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-03 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 15:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 15:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 16:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 16:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 17:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 17:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 21:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-03 21:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-04 21:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 21:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 21:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-04 21:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-04 22:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-10-04 22:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 22:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 22:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 11:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-05 11:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-05 13:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 13:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 5:57 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:57 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-03 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 5:48 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:48 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-11 1:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 2:36 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 2:36 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 0:56 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 0:56 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:02 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:02 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 1:15 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 1:15 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-03 17:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-03 17:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 14:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 14:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-10 5:30 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:30 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-05 13:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 13:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:59 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:59 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 13:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 13:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 12:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 13:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 13:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 14:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 14:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:47 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:47 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-10 5:08 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:08 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 9:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:28 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:28 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20171004221538.sw2u5pc32pysfetf@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/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.