Re: PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0 in 4.0.0-rc3-2, kvm related?

[Denys Vlasenko]

On 03/18/2015 10:55 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 03/18/2015 10:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> disassemble page_fault
>>>>> Dump of assembler code for function page_fault:
>>>>>    0xffffffff816834a0 <+0>:     data32 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>>>    0xffffffff816834a3 <+3>:     data32 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>>>    0xffffffff816834a6 <+6>:     data32 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>>>    0xffffffff816834a9 <+9>:     sub    $0x78,%rsp
>>>>>    0xffffffff816834ad <+13>:    callq  0xffffffff81683620 <error_entry>
>>>>
>>>> The callq was the double-faulting instruction, and it is indeed the
>>>> first function in here that would have accessed the stack.  (The sub
>>>> *changes* rsp but isn't a memory access.)  So, since RSP is bogus, we
>>>> page fault, and the page fault is promoted to a double fault.  The
>>>> surprising thing is that the page fault itself seems to have been
>>>> delivered okay, and RSP wasn't on a page boundary.
>>>
>>> Not at all surprising, and sure it was on a page boundry..
>>>
>>> Look closer.
>>>
>>> %rsp is 00007fffa55eafb8.
>>>
>>> But that's *after* page_fault has done that
>>>
>>>     sub    $0x78,%rsp
>>>
>>> so %rsp when the page fault happened was 0x7fffa55eb030. Which is a
>>> different page.
> 
> Ah, I forgot to add 0x78.  You're right, of course.
> 
>>>
>>> And that page happened to be mapped.
>>>
>>> So what happened is:
>>>
>>>  - we somehow entered kernel mode without switching stacks
>>>
>>>    (ie presumably syscall)
>>>
>>>  - the user stack was still fine
>>>
>>>  - we took a page fault, which once again didn't switch stacks,
>>> because we were already in kernel mode. And this page fault worked,
>>> because it just pushed the error code onto the user stack which was
>>> mapped.
>>>
>>>  - we now took a second page fault within the page fault handler,
>>> because now the stack pointer has been decremented and points one user
>>> page down that is *not* mapped, so now that page fault cannot push the
>>> error code and return information.
>>>
>>> Now, how we took that original page fault is sadly not very clear at
>>> all.  I agree that it's something about system-call (how could we not
>>> change stacks otherwise), but why it should have started now, I don't
>>> know. I don't think "system_call" has changed at all.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is something wrong with the new "ret_from_sys_call" logic,
>>> and that "use sysret to return to user mode" thing. Because this code
>>> sequence:
>>>
>>> +       movq (RSP-RIP)(%rsp),%rsp
>>> +       USERGS_SYSRET64
>>>
>>> in 'irq_return_via_sysret' is new to 4.0, and instead of entering the
>>> kernel with a user stack poiinter, maybe we're *exiting* the kernel,
>>> and have just reloaded the user stack pointer when "USERGS_SYSRET64"
>>> takes some fault.
>>
>> Yes, so far we happily thought that SYSRET never fails...
>>
>> This merits adding some code which would at least BUG_ON
>> if the faulting address is seen to match SYSRET64.
> 
> sysret64 can only fail with #GP, and we're totally screwed if that
> happens, although I agree about the BUG_ON in principle.  Where would
> we add it that would help in this case, though?  We never even made it
> to C code.
> 
> In any event, this was a page fault.  sysret64 doesn't access memory.

Let's see.

Faulting SYSRET will still be in CPL0.
It would drop CPU into the #GP handler
but %rsp is already loaded with _user_ %rsp (!).

#GP handler will start pushing stuff onto stack,
happily thinking that it is a kernel stack.

This can cause a page fault.

Most likely, this page fault won't succeed,
and we'd get a double fault with %pir somewhere in #GP handler.

Yes, this doesn't entirely matches what we see...

There is an easy way to test the theory that SYSRET is to blame.

Just replace

        movq RCX(%rsp),%rcx
        cmpq %rcx,RIP(%rsp)             /* RCX == RIP */
        jne opportunistic_sysret_failed

this "jne" with "jmp", and try to reproduce.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/