Re: [PATCH 00/13] tools/nolibc: riscv: Add full rv32 support

Willy Tarreau
2023-05-28T11:33:44Z

On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 06:39:57PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > I have read the comments that others made on the series and overall
> > agree. I've seen that you intend to prepare a v2. I think we must
> > first decide how to better deal with emulated syscalls as I said in
> > an earlier message. Probably that we should just add a specific test
> > case for EFAULT in nolibc-test since it's the only one (I think) that
> > risks to trigger crashes with emulated syscalls. We could also imagine
> > dealing with the signal ourselves but I'm not that keen on going to
> > implement signal() & longjmp() for now :-/
> >
>
> Yes, user-space signal() may be the right direction, we just need to let
> user-space not crash the kernel, what about this 'solution' for current stage
> (consider the pure time64 support too):
>
> #if defined(NOLIBC) && defined(__NR_gettimeofday) && __SIZEOF_LONG__ == 8
> CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_bad1); EXPECT_SYSER(1, gettimeofday((void *)1, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;
> CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_bad2); EXPECT_SYSER(1, gettimeofday(NULL, (void *)1), -1, EFAULT); break;
> #endif
>
> This idea is from your commit 1da02f51088 ("selftests/nolibc: support glibc as
> well") for glibc, but the difference is of course glibc not crashes the kernel.

Well, I was imagining implementing an EXPECT_EFAULT() macro that would
rely on whatever other macros we'd set to indicate that a syscall got
remapped. But I had another check grepping for EFAULT:

CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_bad1); EXPECT_SYSER(1, gettimeofday((void *)1, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_bad2); EXPECT_SYSER(1, gettimeofday(NULL, (void *)1), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(poll_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, poll((void *)1, 1, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(prctl); EXPECT_SYSER(1, prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (unsigned long)NULL, 0, 0, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(select_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, select(1, (void *)1, NULL, NULL, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(stat_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat(NULL, &stat_buf), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_fstat, 0, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;

In short, they're very few, and several of these could simply be dropped
as irrelevant once we know that the libc is able to remap them and
dereference the arguments itself.

I'd be fine with dropping the two gettimeofday_bad ones, poll_fault,
select_fault and stat_fault. These ones already have at least one or
two other tests. These ones were initially added because they were
easy to implement, but if they're not relevant we can drop them and
stop wondering how to hack around the tests.

If that's OK for you as well I can do that.

> Btw, since the gettimeofday_null case may be optimized by compiler and not
> trigger such errors:
>
> // rv32
> nolibc-test.c:(.text.run_syscall+0x8c0): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
>
> // arm32
> nolibc-test.c:(.text.run_syscall+0x820): undefined reference to `__aeabi_ldivmod'
>
> The above errors have been hidden after the disabling of the gettimeofday_bad1
> test case, so, still need to solve it before sending v2.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, I'm not seeing such a divide in
the code. Or maybe you're speaking about what you got after some of your
proposed changes ?

> The method used by musl may work, but the high bits may be lost (from long long
> to int)?
>
> tv->tv_usec = (int)ts.tv_nsec / 1000;

Yes, and it would be even cleaner to use a uint here since tv_nsec is
always positive. This will simply result in a multiplication and a
shift on most platforms. Of course that's the type of thing you normally
don't want on a fast path for some small systems but here code compacity
counts more and that's fine.

> Perhaps we really need to add the missing __divdi3 and __aeabi_ldivmod and the
> ones for the other architectures, or get one from lib/math/div64.c.

No, these ones come from the compiler via libgcc_s, we must not try to
reimplement them. And we should do our best to avoid depending on them
to avoid the error you got above.

> Will add such new test cases to detect the above issues:
>
> CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_tv); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, gettimeofday(&tv, NULL)); break;
> CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_tz); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, gettimeofday(NULL, &tz)); break;
> CASE_TEST(gettimeofday_tv_tz);EXPECT_SYSZR(1, gettimeofday(&tv, &tz)); break;
>
> May still require to add 'used' attribute to 'struct timeval tv' and 'struct
> timeval tz' to let compiler not optimize them away.

Maybe, or turn them to volatile as well.

> For the waitid syscall based waitpid INT_MIN test case, I have prepared such
> code:
>
> #define IF_TEST(name) \
> if (strcmp(test, #name) == 0)
>
> const int _errorno(const char *test)
> {
> #ifdef __NR_wait4
> IF_TEST(waitpid_min); return ESRCH;
> #else /* __NR_waitid */
> IF_TEST(waitpid_min); return EINVAL;
> #endif
> return 0;
> }
>
> #define errorno(test) _errorno(#test)
>
> CASE_TEST(waitpid_min); EXPECT_SYSER(1, waitpid(INT_MIN, &tmp, WNOHANG), -1, errorno(waitpid_min)); break;
>
> Instead of simply disabling this case, the above code allows to return
> different values for different syscalls.

I don't like this, it gets particularly complicated to follow, especially
since it doesn't rely on the underlying syscall but on which ones are
defined, and supposes that the underlying implementation will use exactly
these ones. Do not forget that we're not trying to verify that the tests
provoke a specific syscall return, but that our syscall implementation
returns the errno the application expects. If we see that one of them
breaks, it means either that our test is wrong or undefined, or that our
mapping of the syscall is incorrect. But in either case it indicates that
an application relying on a specific errno would see a different value.

Many syscalls can return various values among a set, depending on which
error is tested first. If that's the case for the ones above, I'd largely
prefer to have EXPECT_SYSER2() that accepts any errno among a set of two
(and maybe layer EXPECT_SYSER3() if 3 errno are possible).

Also there's something to keep in mind: nolibc-test is just one userland
application among others. This means that every time you need to modify
it to shut up an error that pops up after a change to nolibc, it means
that you're possibly breaking one application living on an edge case and
explicitly checking for that errno value. It is not necessarily dramatic
but that's still something to keep in mind. We've all seen some of our
code fail after a syscall started to report a new errno value we didn't
expect, so it's important to still be cautious here and not to rely too
much on the ease of adapting error handling in nolibc-test.

> Thanks very much and I have seen another two have been pushed too, will rebase
> everything on this new branch.

OK.

> Based on the other suggestions from you and Thomas, I plan to send some generic
> and independent changes at first, and then the left hard parts, It may simplify
> the whole progress.

Yes, thank you! As a general rule of thumb (which makes the handling
easier for everyone including you), the least controversial changes should
be proposed first. This often allows to merge the first half of the patches
at once and saves you from having to reorder what's left.

Willy