Re: [PATCH] net: sk == 0xffffffff fix - not for commit

[Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@samsung.com>]

W dniu 17.01.2014 13:18, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 16.01.2014 17:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
>> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:21 +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>>> W dniu 10.12.2013 15:25, Eric Dumazet pisze:
>>>> On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 07:55 +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>>>>> W dniu 09.12.2013 16:31, Eric Dumazet pisze:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 12:47 +0100, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>> NOT FOR COMMITTING TO MAINLINE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With g_ether loaded the sk occasionally becomes 0xffffffff.
>>>>>>> It happens usually after transferring few hundreds of kilobytes to few
>>>>>>> tens of megabytes. If sk is 0xffffffff then dereferencing it causes
>>>>>>> kernel panic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a *workaround*. I don't know enough net code to understand the core
>>>>>>> of the problem. However, with this patch applied the problems are gone,
>>>>>>> or at least pushed farther away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it happening on SMP or UP ?
>>>>>
>>>>> UP build, S5PC110
>>>>
>>>> OK
>>>>
>>>> I believe you need additional debugging to track the exact moment
>>>> 0xffffffff is fed to 'sk'
>>>>
>>>> It looks like a very strange bug, involving a problem in some assembly
>>>> helper, register save/restore, compiler bug or stack corruption or
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I started with adding WARN_ON(sk == 0xffffffff); just before return in
>>> __inet_lookup_established(), and the problem was gone. So this looks
>>> very strange, like a toolchain problem.
>>
>> Or a timing issue. Adding a WARN_ON() adds extra instructions and might
>> really change the assembly output.
>>
>>>
>>> I used gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.8-2013.05.
>>>
>>> If I change the toolchain to
>>>
>>> gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.7-2013.04-20130415
>>>
>>> the problem seems to have gone away.
>>
>> Its totally possible some barrier was not properly handled by the
>> compiler. You could disassemble the function on both toolchains and
>> try to spot the issue.
>>
>
> So I gave it a try.
>
> Below is a part of assembly code (ARM) which corresponds to the last
> lines of the __inet_lookup_established():
>
> C source:
> =========
> found:
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 	return sk;
> }
>
> assembly for toolchain 4.7:
> ===========================
> c0333bb8:	ebf4bb6e 	bl	c0062978 <__rcu_read_unlock>
> c0333bbc:	e51b0030 	ldr	r0, [fp, #-48]	; 0x30
> c0333bc0:	e24bd028 	sub	sp, fp, #40	; 0x28
> c0333bc4:	e89daff0 	ldm	sp, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp, sp, pc}
> c0333bc8:	e5132018 	ldr	r2, [r3, #-24]
>
>
> assembly for toolchain 4.8:
> ===========================
> c033ff5c:	ebf4927e 	bl	c006495c <__rcu_read_unlock>
> c033ff60:	e24bd028 	sub	sp, fp, #40	; 0x28
> c033ff64:	e51b0030 	ldr	r0, [fp, #-48]	; 0x30
> c033ff68:	e89daff0 	ldm	sp, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp, sp, pc}
> c033ff6c:	e5113018 	ldr	r3, [r1, #-24]
>
> What can be seen is that the usage of registers is slightly different,
> and, what is more important, the _order_ of ldr/sub is different.
> Now, if I swap the instructions at offsets c033ff60 and c033ff64
> in the 4.8-generated vmlinux, the problem seems gone! Well, at least
> the binary behaves the same way as the 4.7-generated one.
>
> Here is a _hypothesis_ of what _might_ be happening:
>
> The function in question puts its return value in the register r0.
> In both cases the return value is fetched from a memory location
> relative #-48 to what the frame pointer points to. However,
> in the 4.7-generated binary the ldr executes in the branch delay slot,
> whereas in the 4.8-generated binary it is the sub which executes
> in the branch delay slot. That way, in the 4.7-generated binary the return
> value is fetched before __rcu_read_unlock begins, but in the
> 4.8-generated binary it is fetched some time later. Which might be
> enough for someone else to schedule in and break the data to be
> copied to r0 and returned from the function.
>
> As I said, this is just a hypothesis.
>

Please disregard what I have written.

There is no delay slot on ARM :O

A nice hypothesis, though ;)

AP