All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Gracefully handle empty stack traces
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:47:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YzIeCzIdffRSRbec@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YzIRTx/f/bECYvM7@google.com>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 08:53:35PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 4:17 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bail out of test_dump_stack() if the stack trace is empty rather than
> > > invoking addr2line with zero addresses. The problem with the latter is
> > > that addr2line will block waiting for addresses to be passed in via
> > > stdin, e.g. if running a selftest from an interactive terminal.
> 
> How does this bug occur?  Does backtrace() get inlined?

backtrace() is returning 0. I haven't debugged it further than that yet.
I figured gracefully handling an empty stack trace would be useful to
have independent of this specific issue (which I assume has something to
do with our Google-specific build process).

backtrace() is not getting inlined.

> 
> > > Opportunistically fix up the comment that mentions skipping 3 frames
> > > since only 2 are skipped in the code.
> > >
> > > Cc: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
> > > Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> > > index 71ade6100fd3..c1ce54a41eca 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> > > @@ -42,12 +42,18 @@ static void test_dump_stack(void)
> > >         c = &cmd[0];
> > >         c += sprintf(c, "%s", addr2line);
> > >         /*
> > > -        * Skip the first 3 frames: backtrace, test_dump_stack, and
> > > -        * test_assert. We hope that backtrace isn't inlined and the other two
> > > -        * we've declared noinline.
> > > +        * Skip the first 2 frames, which should be test_dump_stack() and
> > > +        * test_assert(); both of which are declared noinline.  Bail if the
> > > +        * resulting stack trace would be empty. Otherwise, addr2line will block
> > > +        * waiting for addresses to be passed in via stdin.
> > >          */
> > > +       if (n <= 2) {
> > > +               fputs("  (stack trace empty)\n", stderr);
> > > +               return;
> > > +       }
> > 
> > Shouldn't this condition be put immediately after
> >         n = backtrace(stack,n)
> 
> Agreed, that would be more intuitive.

I had that at one point, but then it became confusing that the check is for
(n <= 2) and not (!n).

How about this?

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
index 71ade6100fd3..2b56bbff970c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
@@ -38,16 +38,28 @@ static void test_dump_stack(void)
                 1];
        char *c;

-       n = backtrace(stack, n);
        c = &cmd[0];
        c += sprintf(c, "%s", addr2line);
-       /*
-        * Skip the first 3 frames: backtrace, test_dump_stack, and
-        * test_assert. We hope that backtrace isn't inlined and the other two
-        * we've declared noinline.
-        */
-       for (i = 2; i < n; i++)
-               c += sprintf(c, " %lx", ((unsigned long) stack[i]) - 1);
+
+       n = backtrace(stack, n);
+       if (n > 2) {
+               /*
+                * Skip the first 2 frames, which should be test_dump_stack()
+                * and test_assert(); both of which are declared noinline.
+                */
+               for (i = 2; i < n; i++)
+                       c += sprintf(c, " %lx", ((unsigned long) stack[i]) - 1);
+       } else {
+               /*
+                * Bail if the resulting stack trace would be empty. Otherwise,
+                * addr2line will block waiting for addresses to be passed in
+                * via stdin.
+                */
+               fputs("  (stack trace missing)\n", stderr);
+               return;
+       }
+
        c += sprintf(c, "%s", pipeline);
 #pragma GCC diagnostic push
 #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-result"


  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-26 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-22 23:17 [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Gracefully handle empty stack traces David Matlack
2022-09-26 20:41 ` Vipin Sharma
2022-09-26 20:53   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-09-26 21:47     ` David Matlack [this message]
2022-09-27 13:51       ` Paolo Bonzini

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=YzIeCzIdffRSRbec@google.com \
    --to=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=vipinsh@google.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.