Re: [BUG] NULL pointer deref with rcutorture

Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05T19:36:22Z

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:56:55PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 01:14:09PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > Could the popular rcu function be registered by rcutorture, but when
> > > we remove the module the callback is no longer valid? I can compile
> > > a kernel just fine and with other stress tests i did not see any oops so
> > > far.
> >
> > One approach would be to print out the address of rcutorture's RCU
> > callbacks at rcutorture module initialization time (in rcu_torture_init()
> > in kernel/rcutorture.c). The two callbacks are rcu_torture_cb() and
> > rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb(). Unless you are specifying the
> > "torture_type" parameter to rcutorture, only the first one should be in
> > use.
>
> with a printk(KERN_ERR "rcu_torture_cb: %p rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb:
> %p\n", rcu_torture_cb, rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb);

Cool!

> [ 65.135468] rcu_torture_cb: d0af7d1b rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb:
> d0af7bec
> [ 65.135672] rcu-torture:--- Start of test: nreaders=2 nfakewriters=4
> stat_interval=0 verbose=0 test_no_idle_hz=0 shuffle_interval=3 stutter=5
> irqreader=1
> [ 71.171603] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> (null)
> [ 71.171954] IP: [<d0af7a0f>] 0xd0af7a0f
> [ 71.192822] *pde = 00000000
> [ 71.196513] Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [ 71.196826] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range
> [ 71.197010] Modules linked in: [last unloaded: rcutorture]
> [ 71.197010]
> [ 71.197010] Pid: 4861, comm: rcu_torture_wri Tainted: G W
> (2.6.28-05716-gfe0bdec-dirty #171) System Name
> [ 71.197010] EIP: 0060:[<d0af7a0f>] EFLAGS: 00010282 CPU: 0
> [ 71.197010] EIP is at 0xd0af7a0f
> [ 71.197010] EAX: 00000000 EBX: d0afbc20 ECX: c04f5cef EDX: c98abf7c
> [ 71.197010] ESI: d0af7df0 EDI: 00000000 EBP: c98abfc4 ESP: c98abfc4
> [ 71.197010] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
> [ 71.197010] Process rcu_torture_wri (pid: 4861, ti=c98ab000
> task=c9890d00 task.ti=c98ab000)
> [ 71.197010] Stack:
> [ 71.197010] c98abfd0 d0af7eeb 00000000 c98abfe0 c0137364 c0137326
> 00000000 00000000
> [ 71.197010] c0103643 c981fea4 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> 00000000
> [ 71.197010] Call Trace:
> [ 71.197010] [<c0137364>] ? kthread+0x3e/0x66
> [ 71.197010] [<c0137326>] ? kthread+0x0/0x66
> [ 71.197010] [<c0103643>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
> [ 71.197010] Code: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 00 00 <00> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> [ 71.197010] EIP: [<d0af7a0f>] 0xd0af7a0f SS:ESP 0068:c98abfc4
> [ 71.301103] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
>
> If i interpret this correctly, this corresponds to
>
> 000009e8 <rcu_stutter_wait>:
> 9e8: 55 push %ebp
> 9e9: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> 9eb: e8 fc ff ff ff call 9ec <rcu_stutter_wait+0x4>

Wow!!! Am I reading this correctly? Does the above "call" instruction
-really- call one byte into itself? That is what the hex for the x86
instruction -looks- like it is doing, but I cannot see what would have
possessed the compiler to generate this code.

When I compile on a 32-bit x86 machine, I don't see the above "call"
instruction. Other than that, the code I see looks consistent.

> 9f0: eb 1d jmp a0f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x27>
> 9f2: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> 9f9: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> 9fe: 75 0a jne a0a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
> a00: b8 e8 03 00 00 mov $0x3e8,%eax
> a05: e8 fc ff ff ff call a06 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
> a0a: e8 fc ff ff ff call a0b <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
> a0f: 83 3d 6c 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x6c
> ^---------- this line

This looks like the first test in the "while" loop.

> a16: 75 09 jne a21 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x39>
> a18: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
> a1f: 75 09 jne a2a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x42>
> a21: 83 3d 50 1a 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x1a50
> a28: 74 c8 je 9f2 <rcu_stutter_wait+0xa>
> a2a: 5d pop %ebp
> a2b: c3 ret

The corresponding C code is as follows:

static void
rcu_stutter_wait(void)
{
while ((stutter_pause_test || !rcutorture_runnable) && !fullstop) {
if (rcutorture_runnable)
schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
else
schedule_timeout_interruptible(round_jiffies_relative(HZ));
}
}

I don't see much opportunity for a page fault here... This is the
binary I get when I compile it, though not as a module:

0000085a <rcu_stutter_wait>:
85a: 55 push %ebp
85b: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
85d: eb 1d jmp 87c <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
85f: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
866: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
86b: 75 0a jne 877 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1d>
86d: b8 e8 03 00 00 mov $0x3e8,%eax
872: e8 fc ff ff ff call 873 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x19>
877: e8 fc ff ff ff call 878 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
87c: 83 3d 14 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x14
883: 75 09 jne 88e <rcu_stutter_wait+0x34>
885: 83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x0
88c: 75 09 jne 897 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x3d>
88e: 83 3d 08 1a 00 00 00 cmpl $0x0,0x1a08
895: 74 c8 je 85f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5>
897: 5d pop %ebp
898: c3 ret

I confess, I am confused!!!

Thanx, Paul