public inbox for kvm@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox