Message ID | 20160414155708.upka6phfvwpbp6zw@treble (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Not Applicable, archived |
Headers | show |
On 04/14/2016 05:57 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:29:06PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> On 04/13/2016 07:10 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>>>>>>> From the disassembly of drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_attr.o: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 0000000000002f53 <qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name>: >>>>>>>> 2f53: 55 push %rbp >>>>>>>> 2f54: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 0000000000002f57 <qla2x00_get_fc_host_stats>: >>>>>>>> 2f57: 55 push %rbp >>>>>>>> 2f58: b9 e8 00 00 00 mov $0xe8,%ecx >>>>>>>> 2f5d: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() is inexplicably >>>>>>>> truncated after >>>>>>>> setting up the frame pointer. It falls through to the next >>>>>>>> function, which is >>>>>>>> very wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wow, that's ... interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can recreate it with either gcc 5.3.1 or gcc 6.0 on >>>>>>>> linus/master with >>>>>>>> the .config from the above link. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The call chain which appears to trigger the problem is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() >>>>>>>> wwn_to_u64() >>>>>>>> get_unaligned_be64() >>>>>>>> be64_to_cpup() >>>>>>>> __be64_to_cpup() <- changed to __always_inline by this >>>>>>>> patch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It occurs with the combination of the following two recent >>>>>>>> commits: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force >>>>>>>> inlining of some byteswap operations") >>>>>>>> - ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn >>>>>>>> access") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can confirm that reverting either patch makes the problem go >>>>>>>> away. >>>>>>>> I'm planning on opening a gcc bug tomorrow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that if CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING is not set, _all_ "inline" >>>>>>> keywords are in fact __always_inline, so the bug must be >>>>>>> triggering >>>>>>> even without the patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Makes sense in theory, but the bug doesn't actually trigger when I >>>>>> revert the patch and set CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=n. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps even more surprising, it doesn't trigger *with* the patch >>>>>> and >>>>>> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=n. >>>>> >>>>> [ Adding James to CC since this bug affects scsi. ] >>>>> >>>>> Here's the gcc bug: >>>>> >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, adding me doesn't help, I've added linux-scsi. The summary >>>> is that there's a but in gcc-5.3.1 which is miscompiling qla_attr.c ... >>>> this means we're going to have to ask the compiler version of reported >>>> crashes. >>> >>> The bug isn't specific to a compiler version. I've seen it with gcc >>> 5.3.1 and gcc 6.0. I haven't tried any older versions. And the gcc bug >>> hasn't been resolved (or even investigated) yet. >>> >>> The bug is triggered by a combination of the above two commits from the >>> 4.6 merge window, so presumably we'd need to revert one of them to avoid >>> crashes in 4.6. >> >> The bug is indeed in the compiler. 4.9 and all later versions are affected. >> gcc bugzilla now has a reproducer. In abridged form: >> >> >> static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) u64 __swab64p(const u64 *p) >> { >> return (__builtin_constant_p((u64)(*p)) ? ((u64)( (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x00000000000000ffULL) << 56) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x000000000000ff00ULL) << 40) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x0000000000ff0000ULL) << 24) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x00000000ff000000ULL) << 8) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x000000ff00000000ULL) >> 8) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x0000ff0000000000ULL) >> 24) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0x00ff000000000000ULL) >> 40) | (((u64)(*p) & (u64)0xff00000000000000ULL) >> 56))) : __builtin_bswap64(*p)); >> } >> static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(void *wwn) >> { >> return __swab64p(wwn); >> } >> static void qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name(struct Scsi_Host *shost) >> { >> scsi_qla_host_t *vha = shost_priv(shost); >> u8 node_name[8] = { 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF}; >> u64 fabric_name = wwn_to_u64(node_name); >> if (vha->device_flags & 0x1) >> fabric_name = wwn_to_u64(vha->fabric_node_name); >> (((struct fc_host_attrs *)(shost)->shost_data)->fabric_name) = fabric_name; >> } > > Nice work with the reproducer! > >> Two (or more, there were more before simplification) levels of inlining >> are necessary for bug to trigger in this example (folding to one level >> makes it go away). "__attribute__((always_inline))" is necessary too. >> >> >> Since we have lots of __always_inline anyway, this bug has a potential >> to miscompile kernels regardless of CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING setting, >> and with or without the patches mentioned above (they just happen >> to create a reliable reproducer). > > Well, but setting !CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING makes the problem go away > for some reason. It seems like the bug requires wwn_to_u64() being > out-of-line and __swab64p() being in-line. By my reading of what gcc gurus are talking there, gcc has some new-ish machinery for discarding unreachable code. Akin to not continuing code generation after a call to never-returning function like exit(), but smarter (it can detect much less obvious cases when some code path is not possible). And it has a subtle bug. In this case, it decided that both branches of ternary op ?: in __swab64p() are impossible, and therefore __swab64p() is impossible. (Which is, of course, bogus, that's why it's a bug). Then this bogus decision was propagated through inlining and gcc decided that entire qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() function is an impossible (unreachable) code path, and... eliminated it all. Good boy :D > In fact, the following patch seems to fix it: > > diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > index bf66ea6..56b9e81 100644 > --- a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ fc_remote_port_chkready(struct fc_rport *rport) > return result; > } > > -static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > +static __always_inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > { > return get_unaligned_be64(wwn); > } It is not a guarantee. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote: > > In fact, the following patch seems to fix it: > > > > diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > index bf66ea6..56b9e81 100644 > > --- a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ fc_remote_port_chkready(struct fc_rport *rport) > > return result; > > } > > > > -static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > +static __always_inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > { > > return get_unaligned_be64(wwn); > > } > > It is not a guarantee. Of course it's a workaround - but is there any deterministic way to turn off this GCC bug (by activating some GCC command line switch), or do we have to live with objtool warning about this GCC? Which, by the way, is pretty cool! Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:45:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > In fact, the following patch seems to fix it: > > > > > > diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > index bf66ea6..56b9e81 100644 > > > --- a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ fc_remote_port_chkready(struct fc_rport *rport) > > > return result; > > > } > > > > > > -static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > > +static __always_inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > > { > > > return get_unaligned_be64(wwn); > > > } > > > > It is not a guarantee. > > Of course it's a workaround - but is there any deterministic way to turn off this > GCC bug (by activating some GCC command line switch), or do we have to live with > objtool warning about this GCC? I don't think we know yet if there's a reliable way to turn the bug off. Also, according to the gcc guys, this bug won't always result in a truncated function, and may sometimes just make some inline function call sites disappear: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646#c14 though I haven't been able to confirm that experimentally. But if it's true, that means that objtool won't be able to detect all cases of the bug and some function calls may just silently disappear! There's a lot of activity in the bug now, so hopefully they'll be able to tell us soon if there's a reliable way to avoid it and/or detect it. BTW, Denys posted a workaround patch for the qla2xxxx code: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460716583-15673-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:47:45AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:45:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > In fact, the following patch seems to fix it: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > > index bf66ea6..56b9e81 100644 > > > > --- a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > > +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h > > > > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ fc_remote_port_chkready(struct fc_rport *rport) > > > > return result; > > > > } > > > > > > > > -static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > > > +static __always_inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) > > > > { > > > > return get_unaligned_be64(wwn); > > > > } > > > > > > It is not a guarantee. > > > > Of course it's a workaround - but is there any deterministic way to turn off this > > GCC bug (by activating some GCC command line switch), or do we have to live with > > objtool warning about this GCC? > > I don't think we know yet if there's a reliable way to turn the bug off. > > Also, according to the gcc guys, this bug won't always result in a > truncated function, and may sometimes just make some inline function > call sites disappear: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646#c14 > > though I haven't been able to confirm that experimentally. But if it's > true, that means that objtool won't be able to detect all cases of the > bug and some function calls may just silently disappear! > > There's a lot of activity in the bug now, so hopefully they'll be able > to tell us soon if there's a reliable way to avoid it and/or detect it. > > BTW, Denys posted a workaround patch for the qla2xxxx code: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460716583-15673-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com Martin Jambor wrote a succinct summary of the conditions needed for this bug: "This bug can occur when an inlineable function containing a call to __builtin_constant_p, which checks a parameter or a value it references and a (possibly indirect) caller of the function actually passes a constant, but stores it using a type of a different size." So to prevent it from happening elsewhere in the kernel, it sounds like we'd have to either remove all uses of __builtin_constant_p() or disable inlining completely. There's also no reliable way to detect the bug has occurred, though objtool will detect it in cases when the function gets truncated.
* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > I don't think we know yet if there's a reliable way to turn the bug off. > > > > Also, according to the gcc guys, this bug won't always result in a > > truncated function, and may sometimes just make some inline function > > call sites disappear: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646#c14 > > > > though I haven't been able to confirm that experimentally. But if it's > > true, that means that objtool won't be able to detect all cases of the > > bug and some function calls may just silently disappear! > > > > There's a lot of activity in the bug now, so hopefully they'll be able > > to tell us soon if there's a reliable way to avoid it and/or detect it. > > > > BTW, Denys posted a workaround patch for the qla2xxxx code: > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460716583-15673-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com > > Martin Jambor wrote a succinct summary of the conditions needed for this > bug: > > "This bug can occur when an inlineable function containing a call to > __builtin_constant_p, which checks a parameter or a value it > references and a (possibly indirect) caller of the function actually > passes a constant, but stores it using a type of a different size." > > So to prevent it from happening elsewhere in the kernel, it sounds like > we'd have to either remove all uses of __builtin_constant_p() or disable > inlining completely. > > There's also no reliable way to detect the bug has occurred, though > objtool will detect it in cases when the function gets truncated. So it appears to me that due to the hard to detect nature of the GCC bug the fix will probably be backported by them, so I think we should be fine with relying on objtool to detect weird code sequences in the kernel, and should work around specific instances of the bug. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:03:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think we know yet if there's a reliable way to turn the bug off. > > > > > > Also, according to the gcc guys, this bug won't always result in a > > > truncated function, and may sometimes just make some inline function > > > call sites disappear: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646#c14 > > > > > > though I haven't been able to confirm that experimentally. But if it's > > > true, that means that objtool won't be able to detect all cases of the > > > bug and some function calls may just silently disappear! > > > > > > There's a lot of activity in the bug now, so hopefully they'll be able > > > to tell us soon if there's a reliable way to avoid it and/or detect it. > > > > > > BTW, Denys posted a workaround patch for the qla2xxxx code: > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460716583-15673-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com > > > > Martin Jambor wrote a succinct summary of the conditions needed for this > > bug: > > > > "This bug can occur when an inlineable function containing a call to > > __builtin_constant_p, which checks a parameter or a value it > > references and a (possibly indirect) caller of the function actually > > passes a constant, but stores it using a type of a different size." > > > > So to prevent it from happening elsewhere in the kernel, it sounds like > > we'd have to either remove all uses of __builtin_constant_p() or disable > > inlining completely. > > > > There's also no reliable way to detect the bug has occurred, though > > objtool will detect it in cases when the function gets truncated. > > So it appears to me that due to the hard to detect nature of the GCC bug the fix > will probably be backported by them, so I think we should be fine with relying on > objtool to detect weird code sequences in the kernel, and should work around > specific instances of the bug. I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have been several suggestions: - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to wwn_to_u64() - revert one of the two commits: bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations") ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access")
On Monday 18 April 2016 08:39:32 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have > been several suggestions: > > - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline > > - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to > wwn_to_u64() > > - revert one of the two commits: > bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations") > ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access") What about the patch to change get_unaligned_be64() that I posted? I think we want to merge that anyway, I just don't know if that helps with this particular problem as well. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:07:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 18 April 2016 08:39:32 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have > > been several suggestions: > > > > - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline > > > > - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to > > wwn_to_u64() > > > > - revert one of the two commits: > > bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations") > > ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access") > > What about the patch to change get_unaligned_be64() that I posted? > > I think we want to merge that anyway, I just don't know if that helps > with this particular problem as well. I replied to your other email about that -- it doesn't seem to help this issue.
On Monday 18 April 2016 09:12:41 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:07:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 18 April 2016 08:39:32 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have > > > been several suggestions: > > > > > > - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline > > > > > > - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to > > > wwn_to_u64() > > > > > > - revert one of the two commits: > > > bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations") > > > ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access") > > > > What about the patch to change get_unaligned_be64() that I posted? > > > > I think we want to merge that anyway, I just don't know if that helps > > with this particular problem as well. > > I replied to your other email about that -- it doesn't seem to help this > issue. > Ok, I see. I had problems with my mail server last week, your reply must have been a victim of that as I never saw it (found it on the web archive now). I'd vote for the wwn_to_u64 change then as it should prevent the same thing from happining in other drivers. I would prefer not to see ef3fb2422ffe reverted, as that works around another gcc-6 bug on ARM. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:03:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think we know yet if there's a reliable way to turn the bug off. > > > > > > > > Also, according to the gcc guys, this bug won't always result in a > > > > truncated function, and may sometimes just make some inline function > > > > call sites disappear: > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70646#c14 > > > > > > > > though I haven't been able to confirm that experimentally. But if it's > > > > true, that means that objtool won't be able to detect all cases of the > > > > bug and some function calls may just silently disappear! > > > > > > > > There's a lot of activity in the bug now, so hopefully they'll be able > > > > to tell us soon if there's a reliable way to avoid it and/or detect it. > > > > > > > > BTW, Denys posted a workaround patch for the qla2xxxx code: > > > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460716583-15673-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com > > > > > > Martin Jambor wrote a succinct summary of the conditions needed for this > > > bug: > > > > > > "This bug can occur when an inlineable function containing a call to > > > __builtin_constant_p, which checks a parameter or a value it > > > references and a (possibly indirect) caller of the function actually > > > passes a constant, but stores it using a type of a different size." > > > > > > So to prevent it from happening elsewhere in the kernel, it sounds like > > > we'd have to either remove all uses of __builtin_constant_p() or disable > > > inlining completely. > > > > > > There's also no reliable way to detect the bug has occurred, though > > > objtool will detect it in cases when the function gets truncated. > > > > So it appears to me that due to the hard to detect nature of the GCC bug the fix > > will probably be backported by them, so I think we should be fine with relying on > > objtool to detect weird code sequences in the kernel, and should work around > > specific instances of the bug. > > I agree. So how should we work around the bug in this case? There have > been several suggestions: > > - change wwn_to_u64() to __always_inline > > - change qla2x00_get_host_fabric_name() to skip the unnecessary call to > wwn_to_u64() > > - revert one of the two commits: > bc27fb68aaad ("include/uapi/linux/byteorder, swab: force inlining of some byteswap operations") > ef3fb2422ffe ("scsi: fc: use get/put_unaligned64 for wwn access") The first option sounds like the best one by far: it does a change that is related to the GCC bug (tweaks inlining), has near zero impact and does not revert other useful progress. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h index bf66ea6..56b9e81 100644 --- a/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.h @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ fc_remote_port_chkready(struct fc_rport *rport) return result; } -static inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) +static __always_inline u64 wwn_to_u64(u8 *wwn) { return get_unaligned_be64(wwn); }