Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: fix oops caused by irq on/off tracer

[Changbin Du]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:59:35PM +0000, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2022, at 15:27, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:37:58PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 01:32:59AM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> Hi Changbin,
> >>> 
> >>> I read the code and find that current riscv frame records during
> >>> exception isn't as completed as other architectures. riscv only
> >>> records frames from the ret_from_exception(). If we add completed
> >> What do you mean for 'record'?
> >> 
> > 
> > stack frame record.
> > 
> >>> frame records as other arch do, then the issue you saw can also
> >>> be fixed at the same time.
> >>> 
> >> I don't think so. The problem is __builtin_return_address(1) trigger page fault
> >> here.
> > 
> > There's misunderstanding here. I interpret this bug as incomplete
> > stackframes.
> > 
> > This is current riscv stackframe during exception:
> > 
> > high
> > 	----------------
> > top	|		|  <- ret_from_exception
> > 	----------------
> > 	|		|  <- trace_hardirqs_on
> > 	-----------------
> > low
> > 
> > As you said, the CALLER_ADDR1 a.k.a __builtin_return_address(1) needs
> > at least two parent call frames. 
> 
> No it doesn’t, you’re off by one, it only needs a valid current frame.
> 
> Jess
>
yes, it is two frames not two 'parent' frames. My fault.
 
> > If we complete the stackframes during exception as other arch does:
> > 
> > high
> > 	----------------
> > top	|		|  <- the synthetic stackframe from the interrupted point
> > 	----------------
> > 	      .....	      
> >        ----------------
> > 	|		|  <- ret_from_exception
> > 	----------------
> > 	|		|  <- trace_hardirqs_on
> > 	-----------------
> > low
> > 
> > 
> > Then we meet the "at least two parent call frames" requirement. IOW, my
> > solution solve the problem from the entry.S side. One of the advantages
> > would be we let interrupted point show up in dump_stack() as other arch
> > do. What I'm not sure is whether it's safe to do so now since rc3 is
> > released.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> However, I'm not sure what's the best choice now.
> >>> 
> >>> A simple demo to this incomplete frames:
> >>> add dump_stack() in any ISR, then
> >>> 
> >>> in riscv:
> >>> [    2.961294] Call Trace:
> >>> [    2.961460] [<ffffffff8000485e>] dump_backtrace+0x1c/0x24
> >>> [    2.961823] [<ffffffff805ed980>] show_stack+0x2c/0x38
> >>> [    2.962153] [<ffffffff805f292e>] dump_stack_lvl+0x40/0x58
> >>> [    2.962483] [<ffffffff805f295a>] dump_stack+0x14/0x1c
> >>> [    2.962792] [<ffffffff805f31a0>] serial8250_interrupt+0x20/0x82
> >>> [    2.963139] [<ffffffff80053032>] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x4c/0x106
> >>> [    2.963526] [<ffffffff80053170>] handle_irq_event+0x38/0x80
> >>> [    2.963856] [<ffffffff80056a32>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x96/0x188
> >>> [    2.964198] [<ffffffff800526ce>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x3a
> >>> [    2.964567] [<ffffffff802f0ae4>] plic_handle_irq+0x88/0xec
> >>> [    2.964896] [<ffffffff800526ce>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x3a
> >>> [    2.965264] [<ffffffff802f08e4>] riscv_intc_irq+0x34/0x5c
> >>> [    2.965584] [<ffffffff805f6dc8>] generic_handle_arch_irq+0x4a/0x74
> >>> [    2.966068] [<ffffffff80002fe8>] ret_from_exception+0x0/0xc
> >>> 
> >>> in x86:
> >>> [    1.191274] Call Trace:
> >>> [    1.192223]  <IRQ>
> >>> [    1.192758]  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
> >>> [    1.192982]  serial8250_interrupt+0x24/0x88
> >>> [    1.193105]  __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x66/0x1b0
> >>> [    1.193239]  handle_irq_event+0x34/0x70
> >>> [    1.193345]  handle_edge_irq+0x85/0x1e0
> >>> [    1.193455]  __common_interrupt+0x38/0x90
> >>> [    1.193573]  common_interrupt+0x73/0x90
> >>> [    1.193809]  </IRQ>
> >>> [    1.193889]  <TASK>
> >>> [    1.193956]  asm_common_interrupt+0x1b/0x40
> >>> [    1.194318] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x1b/0x40
> >>> [    1.194566] Code: 24 be 01 02 00 00 e9 54 20 bf ff 0f 1f 40 00 0f 1f
> >>> 44 00 00 f7 c6 00f
> >>> [    1.195137] RSP: 0000:ffff888000243b68 EFLAGS: 00000246
> >>> [    1.195314] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffff82025840 RCX:
> >>> 0000000000000000
> >>> [    1.195482] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI:
> >>> 0000000000000001
> >>> [    1.195645] RBP: 0000000000000202 R08: ffffffffffffffff R09:
> >>> 0000000000000000
> >>> [    1.195808] R10: 00000000000000eb R11: 0000000000000000 R12:
> >>> 0000000000000000
> >>> [    1.195972] R13: 0000000000000040 R14: 0000000000000000 R15:
> >>> ffff888000c39000
> >>> [    1.196245]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x15/0x40
> >>> [    1.196373]  serial8250_do_startup+0x42d/0x600
> >>> [    1.196502]  uart_port_startup+0x11b/0x270
> >>> [    1.196619]  uart_port_activate+0x3f/0x60
> >>> [    1.196729]  tty_port_open+0x7e/0xd0
> >>> [    1.196835]  ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x12/0x30
> >>> [    1.196942]  uart_open+0x1a/0x30
> >>> [    1.197036]  tty_open+0x153/0x7c0
> >>> [    1.197144]  chrdev_open+0xbf/0x230
> >>> [    1.197253]  ? cdev_device_add+0x90/0x90
> >>> [    1.197359]  do_dentry_open+0x13c/0x360
> >>> [    1.197470]  path_openat+0xb0c/0xe00
> >>> [    1.197577]  ? update_load_avg+0x5f/0x640
> >>> [    1.197691]  ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0xac/0x240
> >>> [    1.197821]  do_filp_open+0xb2/0x150
> >>> [    1.197935]  ? preempt_schedule_thunk+0x16/0x18
> >>> [    1.198049]  ? preempt_schedule_common+0x90/0xd0
> >>> [    1.198167]  ? preempt_schedule_thunk+0x16/0x18
> >>> [    1.198291]  file_open_name+0xf1/0x1b0
> >>> [    1.198397]  filp_open+0x2c/0x50
> >>> [    1.198495]  console_on_rootfs+0x19/0x52
> >>> [    1.198648]  kernel_init_freeable+0x19a/0x1c7
> >>> [    1.198765]  ? rest_init+0xc0/0xc0
> >>> [    1.198867]  kernel_init+0x16/0x110
> >>> [    1.198965]  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> >>> [    1.199131]  </TASK>
> >>> 
> >> As I said before, this issue is not related to stackdump.
> >> 
> >> Besides, you can see more calltrace on x86 that because x86 iterate all stacks
> >> (kernel, irq or exception) when dumping stacktrace. While RISCV only show
> >> calltrace of current stack.
> >> 
> > 
> > I'm not sure whether there's misunderstanding. See above.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-riscv mailing list
> > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
> 

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du