Re: [next] arm: Internal error: Oops: 5 PC is at __read_once_word_nocheck

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:14:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 19:48, Russell King (Oracle)
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 18:11, Russell King (Oracle)
> > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:08:25PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 20:37, Russell King (Oracle)
> > > > > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 03:57:32PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 15:44, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > <trim>
> > > > > > Well, we unwound until:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  __irq_svc from migrate_disable+0x0/0x70
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and then crashed - and the key thing there is that we're at the start
> > > > > > of migrate_disable() when we took an interrupt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For some reason, this triggers an access to address 0x10, which faults.
> > > > > > We then try unwinding again, and successfully unwind all the way back
> > > > > > to the same point (the line above) which then causes the unwinder to
> > > > > > again access address 0x10, and the cycle repeats with the stack
> > > > > > growing bigger and bigger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd suggest also testing without the revert but with my patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have tested your patch on top of linux next-20220309 and still see kernel
> > > > > crash as below [1]. build link [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > [   26.812060] 8<--- cut here ---
> > > > > [   26.813459] Unhandled fault: page domain fault (0x01b) at 0xb6a3ab70
> > > > > [   26.816139] [b6a3ab70] *pgd=fb28a835
> > > > > [   26.817770] Internal error: : 1b [#1] SMP ARM
> > > > > [   26.819636] Modules linked in:
> > > > > [   26.820956] CPU: 0 PID: 211 Comm: haveged Not tainted
> > > > > 5.17.0-rc7-next-20220309 #1
> > > > > [   26.824519] Hardware name: Generic DT based system
> > > > > [   26.827148] PC is at __read_once_word_nocheck+0x0/0x8
> > > > > [   26.829856] LR is at unwind_frame+0x7dc/0xab4
> > > > >
> > > > > - Naresh
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/4688599#L596
> > > > > [2] https://builds.tuxbuild.com/269gYLGuAdmltuLhIUDAjS2fg1Q/
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem has just moved:
> > > >
> > > > [   27.113085]  __irq_svc from __copy_to_user_std+0x24/0x378
> > > >
> > > > The code at the start of __copy_to_user_std is:
> > > >
> > > >    0:   e3a034bf        mov     r3, #-1090519040        ; 0xbf000000
> > > >    4:   e243c001        sub     ip, r3, #1
> > > >    8:   e05cc000        subs    ip, ip, r0
> > > >    c:   228cc001        addcs   ip, ip, #1
> > > >   10:   205cc002        subscs  ip, ip, r2
> > > >   14:   33a00000        movcc   r0, #0
> > > >   18:   e320f014        csdb
> > > >   1c:   e3a03000        mov     r3, #0
> > > >   20:   e92d481d        push    {r0, r2, r3, r4, fp, lr}
> > > >   24:   e1a0b00d        mov     fp, sp
> > > >
> > > > and the unwind information will be:
> > > >
> > > > 0xc056f14c <arm_copy_to_user+0x1c>: @0xc0b89b84
> > > >   Compact model index: 1
> > > >   0x9b      vsp = r11
> > > >   0xb1 0x0d pop {r0, r2, r3}
> > > >   0x84 0x81 pop {r4, r11, r14}
> > > >   0xb0      finish
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that the unwind information says "starting at offset
> > > > 0x1c, to unwind do the following operations". The first of which is
> > > > to move r11 (fp) to the stack pointer. However, r11 isn't setup
> > > > until function offset 0x24. You've hit that instruction, which hasn't
> > > > executed yet, but the stack has been modified by pushing r0, r2-r4,
> > > > fp and lr onto it.
> > > >
> > > > Given this, there is no way that the unwinder (as it currently stands)
> > > > can do its job properly between 0x1c and 0x24.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this is specifically caused by Ard's patches, but by
> > > > the addition of KASAN, which has the effect of calling the unwinder
> > > > at random points in the kernel (when an interrupt happens) and it's
> > > > clear from the above that there are windows in the code where, if
> > > > we attempt to unwind using the unwind information, we faill fail
> > > > because the program state is not consistent with the unwind
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > Ard's patch that changes:
> > > >
> > > >         ctrl->vrs[reg] = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(*vsp));
> > > >
> > > > to use get_kernel_nofault() should have the effect of protecting
> > > > against the oops, but the side effect is that it is fundamentally not
> > > > possible with the way these things are to unwind at these points -
> > > > which means its not possible to get a stacktrace there.
> > > >
> > > > So, I don't think this is a "new" problem, but a weakness of using
> > > > the unwinder to get a backtrace for KASAN.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It essentially means that we cannot unwind through asynchronous
> > > exceptions, and so we should probably make the svc_entry macro
> > > .nounwind, instead of pretending that we can reliably unwind through
> > > it.
> >
> > Doesn't that impact the ability to debug the kernel over things like
> > oopses and the like?
> >
> 
> The backtrace dumped by __die() uses the pt_regs from the exception
> context as the starting point, so the exception entry code that deals
> with the condition that triggered the oops is omitted, and does not
> have to be unwound.

That is true, but that's not really the case I was thinking about.
I was thinking more about cases such as RCU stalls, soft lockups,
etc.

For example:

https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-kernel-70/kenel-v4-4-60-panic-in-igmp6_send-and-and-__neigh_create-4175704721/

In that stack trace, the interesting bits are not the beginning of
the stack trace down to __irq_svc, but everything beyond __irq_svc,
since the lockup is probably caused by being stuck in
_raw_write_lock_bh().

It's these situations that we will totally destroy debuggability for,
and the only way around that would be to force frame pointers and
ARM builds (not Thumb-2 as that requires the unwinder... which means
a Thumb-2 kernel soft lockup would be undebuggable.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel