Re: [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:30:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But that got the same result, 0 tests passed and the splat below.
> 
> My next step would be to rebase the stack back to v6.2, but in
> the meantime, thoughts?

I'm currently rebuilding to retry. My eye got attracted by this in
your trace:

> [    4.733345] Run /init as init process
> [    4.759675] BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 000000000001d5db
> [    4.760006] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> [    4.760164] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> [    4.760361] PGD 2998067 P4D 2998067 PUD 29a5067 PMD 0 
> [    4.760694] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> [    4.760917] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 6.3.0-rc1-00022-gd6bb807e5889 #3
> [    4.761194] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
> [    4.761499] RIP: 0010:__lock_acquire+0x5b5/0x2700
> [    4.761869] Code: 00 83 f8 2f 0f 87 40 07 00 00 3b 05 e9 d8 6e 02 41 bf 01 00 00 00 0f 86 f5 00 00 00 89 05 d7 d8 6e 02 e9 ea 00 00 00 45 31 f6 <48> 81 3f a0 c8 5e 85 45 0f 45 f0 83 fe 01 0f 87 96 fa ff ff 89 f0
> [    4.762391] RSP: 0018:ffffa0f4c0013c50 EFLAGS: 00000046
> [    4.762567] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [    4.762765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 000000000001d5db
> [    4.762959] RBP: ffff9d9341140000 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000001
> [    4.763153] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000
> [    4.763346] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> [    4.763578] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9d9347a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [    4.763804] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [    4.763970] CR2: 000000000001d5db CR3: 00000000028da000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> [    4.764223] Call Trace:
> [    4.764389]  <TASK>
> [    4.764529]  ? lock_acquire+0xbf/0x310
> [    4.764689]  lock_acquire+0xbf/0x310
> [    4.764819]  ? add_timer_on+0x80/0x130
> [    4.764939]  ? add_timer_on+0x78/0x130
> [    4.765048]  ? lock_release+0xbe/0x2a0
> [    4.765162]  _raw_spin_lock+0x2b/0x40
> [    4.765275]  ? add_timer_on+0x80/0x130
> [    4.765384]  add_timer_on+0x80/0x130
> [    4.765495]  try_to_generate_entropy+0x250/0x270
> [    4.765630]  ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> [    4.765749]  ? __pfx_entropy_timer+0x10/0x10
> [    4.765874]  ? 0xffffffff83000000
> [    4.766068]  wait_for_random_bytes+0x49/0xe0
> [    4.766198]  __x64_sys_getrandom+0x8e/0xc0

The stackprot code indeed calls sys_getrandom() so maybe there is an
incidence in calling it that early.

> [    4.766320]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x42/0x80
> [    4.766459]  ? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x21/0x50
> [    4.766600]  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90
> [    4.766709]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
> [    4.766900] RIP: 0033:0x404531
(...)

I'll restart the tests here so that we can compare and check what differs.

Willy