From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37616C77B61 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 14:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q6d5T1Mnfz3fFM for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:14:05 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=rxAoUoti; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Q6d4S4MCDz3cT4 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:13:12 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=rxAoUoti; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q6d4S2KKRz4x5Q; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:13:12 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1682604792; bh=q8JlyF1aNHES3h7STLRujrhXXNku8XOt2DBhyeyLDsM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=rxAoUotiaSZ0B2MNtNhK5O54ewKr2Y2p8GBh/uVfcRd9tG/U0VHYrTnPf3mNaz4dd Mp/8hZCTKlweQnYjAb5Sj4Ov9JxcltPWKZE+x6DL3LxxrqN8TkChjPV1uF7qKM9SRT hpgr0tQrXlRUty6wErrsWaImciH/uMlV/GDOrgokOcwaRK4cZyJlLQ3pWZFtJBgmtz hT+B4HcnXs2kv+o+mBSWBYMTuBNVPyJKRqdfJl8AKMV//sefay3ZAt3ejWCkbtPb5c zzEaWFUCwGojRWKmFYMstmPzw9jIxB5TLmOh/WySVKQFx+X0sl3RU/5fnAxo0tBayW s6r1DNjDfs4iQ== From: Michael Ellerman To: Zhouyi Zhou Subject: Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk_fail In-Reply-To: References: <87cz3tylwx.fsf@mail.concordia> <87v8hixbql.fsf@mail.concordia> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:13:11 +1000 Message-ID: <87wn1xquq0.fsf@mail.concordia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: rcu , lance@osuosl.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-kernel , "Paul E. McKenney" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Zhouyi Zhou writes: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:09=E2=80=AFAM Michael Ellerman wrote: >> >> Zhouyi Zhou writes: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:01=E2=80=AFPM Zhouyi Zhou wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:07=E2=80=AFAM Michael Ellerman wrote: >> ... >> >> > >> >> > There's 12.2.0 here: >> >> > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86= _64/12.2.0/ >> >> > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/ppc= 64le/12.2.0/ >> >> > powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc-12 cross compiler on my Ubuntu 22.04 does >> > not seem to have that issue as gcc-10 does >> >> OK. So so far it's only that GCC 10 that shows the problem. >> >> If you have time, you could use some of the other versions to narrow >> down which versions show the bug: >> >> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/ppc64le/ >> >> There's an 11.0, 11.1 and 11.3 there, as well as 9.5 and so on. > GCC test results (Tested on PPC VM of Open Source Lab of Oregon State > University) > gcc 9.4 (ubuntu native): positive, show bug > gcc 9.5 (download form [1]): positive, show bug > gcc 10.1 (download from [1]): positive, show bug > gcc 10.3 (download from [1]): positive, show bug > gcc 10.4 (download from [1]): positive, show bug > > gcc 11.0 (download from [1]): negative, no bug > gcc 11.1 (download from [1]): negative, no bug > gcc 11.3 (download from [1]): negative, no bug > gcc 12.1 (download from [1]): negative, no bug > gcc 12.2 (download from [1]): negative, no bug Awesome work. How are you testing for presence/absence of the bug? By running your test and seeing if it crashes, or by looking at the generated code? cheers