The following error reported while running nolibc-test on the big endian
64-bit PowerPC kernel compiled with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc in Ubuntu
20.04.
56 select_nullinit[1]: illegal instruction (4) at 100042a8 nip 100042a8 lr 100042a8 code 1 in init[10000000+10000]
init[1]: code: 7c6307b4 7c234840 4081f580 7c6300d0 907d0000 3860ffff 4bfff570 3ca2fffe
init[1]: code: 38800038 38a5d547 7fc3f378 4bffcd65 <1000038c> 38c10060 38a00000 38800000
Let's explicitly initialize all of the timeval members to zero.
Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
index 03b1d30f5507..ec2c7774522e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
@@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
CASE_TEST(read_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, read(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break;
CASE_TEST(rmdir_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, rmdir("/blah"), -1, ENOENT); break;
CASE_TEST(sched_yield); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, sched_yield()); break;
- CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
+ CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0, 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
CASE_TEST(select_stdout); EXPECT_SYSNE(1, ({ fd_set fds; FD_ZERO(&fds); FD_SET(1, &fds); select(2, NULL, &fds, NULL, NULL); }), -1); break;
CASE_TEST(select_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, select(1, (void *)1, NULL, NULL, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
CASE_TEST(stat_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat("/proc/self/blah", &stat_buf), -1, ENOENT); break;
--
2.25.1
As this would be a generic bugfix it should be at the front of the
series, but...
On 2023-07-19 05:13:01+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> The following error reported while running nolibc-test on the big endian
> 64-bit PowerPC kernel compiled with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc in Ubuntu
> 20.04.
>
> 56 select_nullinit[1]: illegal instruction (4) at 100042a8 nip 100042a8 lr 100042a8 code 1 in init[10000000+10000]
> init[1]: code: 7c6307b4 7c234840 4081f580 7c6300d0 907d0000 3860ffff 4bfff570 3ca2fffe
> init[1]: code: 38800038 38a5d547 7fc3f378 4bffcd65 <1000038c> 38c10060 38a00000 38800000
>
> Let's explicitly initialize all of the timeval members to zero.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> index 03b1d30f5507..ec2c7774522e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> @@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> CASE_TEST(read_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, read(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break;
> CASE_TEST(rmdir_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, rmdir("/blah"), -1, ENOENT); break;
> CASE_TEST(sched_yield); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, sched_yield()); break;
> - CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
> + CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0, 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
This doesn't really make sense.
Firstly, "{ 0 }" zeroes the whole structure.
Also the warning talks about "illegal instruction" while this structure
is data and should never be executed as code.
Is this failure reproducible?
Maybe the error is actually in the syscall wrapper?
I'll also take a look tomorrow.
> CASE_TEST(select_stdout); EXPECT_SYSNE(1, ({ fd_set fds; FD_ZERO(&fds); FD_SET(1, &fds); select(2, NULL, &fds, NULL, NULL); }), -1); break;
> CASE_TEST(select_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, select(1, (void *)1, NULL, NULL, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
> CASE_TEST(stat_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat("/proc/self/blah", &stat_buf), -1, ENOENT); break;
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Hi, Thomas
> As this would be a generic bugfix it should be at the front of the
> series, but...
>
Yes, moved it but not as the first.
> On 2023-07-19 05:13:01+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > The following error reported while running nolibc-test on the big endian
> > 64-bit PowerPC kernel compiled with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc in Ubuntu
> > 20.04.
> >
> > 56 select_nullinit[1]: illegal instruction (4) at 100042a8 nip 100042a8 lr 100042a8 code 1 in init[10000000+10000]
> > init[1]: code: 7c6307b4 7c234840 4081f580 7c6300d0 907d0000 3860ffff 4bfff570 3ca2fffe
> > init[1]: code: 38800038 38a5d547 7fc3f378 4bffcd65 <1000038c> 38c10060 38a00000 38800000
> >
> > Let's explicitly initialize all of the timeval members to zero.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > index 03b1d30f5507..ec2c7774522e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > @@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> > CASE_TEST(read_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, read(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break;
> > CASE_TEST(rmdir_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, rmdir("/blah"), -1, ENOENT); break;
> > CASE_TEST(sched_yield); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, sched_yield()); break;
> > - CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
> > + CASE_TEST(select_null); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, ({ struct timeval tv = { 0, 0 }; select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv); })); break;
>
> This doesn't really make sense.
> Firstly, "{ 0 }" zeroes the whole structure.
>
Will compare the difference carefully ...
> Also the warning talks about "illegal instruction" while this structure
> is data and should never be executed as code.
>
Yeah, I'm a little lazy, test shows no issue happen, so, not looked into it, this may really hide some issues.
> Is this failure reproducible?
It could be reproduced with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (9.3.0) + run:
$ make run XARCH=powerpc64 CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc64le-linux-gnu-
but not happen with powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (9.3.0) + run-user:
$ make run-user XARCH=powerpc64 CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc64le-linux-gnu-
And neither reproduce if switch to the big endian powerpc64-linux-gcc 13.1.0
toolchain from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
> Maybe the error is actually in the syscall wrapper?
> I'll also take a look tomorrow.
>
ok, just rechecked this, found the nolibc side is:
int sys_select(int nfds, fd_set *rfds, fd_set *wfds, fd_set *efds, struct timeval *timeout)
--> return my_syscall5(__NR__newselect, nfds, rfds, wfds, efds, timeout);
And the bad code is (even with -O0):
1000e3ac: 10 00 03 8c vspltisw v0,0
1000e3b0: 39 3f 00 e0 addi r9,r31,224
1000e3b4: 7c 00 4f 99 stxvd2x vs32,0,r9
1000e3b8: 39 3f 00 e0 addi r9,r31,224
1000e3bc: 7d 27 4b 78 mr r7,r9
The error log:
56 select_nullinit[1]: illegal instruction (4) at 1000e3ac nip 1000e3ac lr 1000e398 code 1 in init[10000000+14000]
init[1]: code: e93f0076 3ca2fffe 38a5aad0 7d244b78 3c62fffe 3863a630 4bffaedd 7c691b78
init[1]: code: 7d2a4b78 813f008c 7d295214 913f008c <1000038c> 393f00e0 7c004f99 393f00e0
Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x00000004
So, the critical info "illegal instruction" means the vspltisw instruction is
not supported by this compiled kernel.
Let's look at the good one (only plus one instruction):
1000e3ac: 39 20 00 00 li r9,0
1000e3b0: f9 3f 00 e0 std r9,224(r31)
1000e3b4: 39 20 00 00 li r9,0
1000e3b8: f9 3f 00 e8 std r9,232(r31)
1000e3bc: 39 3f 00 e0 addi r9,r31,224
1000e3c0: 7d 27 4b 78 mr r7,r9
It means, adding one more 0 will let the compiler generate different code, it
will not use the vspltisw instruction any more, so, different result.
It made me recalled I have at last disabled (not enabled for tinyconfig) the following options:
CONFIG_ALTIVEC
CONFIG_VSX --> This option enables kernel support for the Vector Scaler extensions
Or we can disable the vsx instructions explicitly:
-mno-vsx
Both of them work well, but I prefer -mno-vsx for to get a faster build, what about you?
+CFLAGS_powerpc64 = -m64 -mbig-endian -Wl,-EB,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
+CFLAGS_powerpc64le = -m64 -mlittle-endian -Wl,-EL,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
So, this patch itself is wrong, let's drop it from the next revision.
Thanks very much,
Zhangjin
> > CASE_TEST(select_stdout); EXPECT_SYSNE(1, ({ fd_set fds; FD_ZERO(&fds); FD_SET(1, &fds); select(2, NULL, &fds, NULL, NULL); }), -1); break;
> > CASE_TEST(select_fault); EXPECT_SYSER(1, select(1, (void *)1, NULL, NULL, 0), -1, EFAULT); break;
> > CASE_TEST(stat_blah); EXPECT_SYSER(1, stat("/proc/self/blah", &stat_buf), -1, ENOENT); break;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Hi Zhangjin,
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:56:37AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> It made me recalled I have at last disabled (not enabled for tinyconfig) the following options:
>
> CONFIG_ALTIVEC
> CONFIG_VSX --> This option enables kernel support for the Vector Scaler extensions
>
> Or we can disable the vsx instructions explicitly:
>
> -mno-vsx
>
> Both of them work well, but I prefer -mno-vsx for to get a faster build, what about you?
>
> +CFLAGS_powerpc64 = -m64 -mbig-endian -Wl,-EB,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> +CFLAGS_powerpc64le = -m64 -mlittle-endian -Wl,-EL,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
>
> So, this patch itself is wrong, let's drop it from the next revision.
Better explicitly disable it in the CFLAGS (2nd option) if we want to
make sure we don't want to rely on this, at least for portability
purposes.
Willy
Hi, Willy
> Hi Zhangjin,
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:56:37AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > It made me recalled I have at last disabled (not enabled for tinyconfig) the following options:
> >
> > CONFIG_ALTIVEC
> > CONFIG_VSX --> This option enables kernel support for the Vector Scaler extensions
> >
> > Or we can disable the vsx instructions explicitly:
> >
> > -mno-vsx
> >
> > Both of them work well, but I prefer -mno-vsx for to get a faster build, what about you?
> >
> > +CFLAGS_powerpc64 = -m64 -mbig-endian -Wl,-EB,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> > +CFLAGS_powerpc64le = -m64 -mlittle-endian -Wl,-EL,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> >
> > So, this patch itself is wrong, let's drop it from the next revision.
>
> Better explicitly disable it in the CFLAGS (2nd option) if we want to
> make sure we don't want to rely on this, at least for portability
> purposes.
Ok, thanks, have updated CFLAGS in these two patches locally:
[PATCH v1 7/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64le
[PATCH v1 8/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64
what about the other ones? I'm ready to send v2 ;-)
Best regards,
Zhangjin
>
> Willy
Hi Zhangjin,
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:49:12PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> Hi, Willy
>
> > Hi Zhangjin,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:56:37AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > > It made me recalled I have at last disabled (not enabled for tinyconfig) the following options:
> > >
> > > CONFIG_ALTIVEC
> > > CONFIG_VSX --> This option enables kernel support for the Vector Scaler extensions
> > >
> > > Or we can disable the vsx instructions explicitly:
> > >
> > > -mno-vsx
> > >
> > > Both of them work well, but I prefer -mno-vsx for to get a faster build, what about you?
> > >
> > > +CFLAGS_powerpc64 = -m64 -mbig-endian -Wl,-EB,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> > > +CFLAGS_powerpc64le = -m64 -mlittle-endian -Wl,-EL,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> > >
> > > So, this patch itself is wrong, let's drop it from the next revision.
> >
> > Better explicitly disable it in the CFLAGS (2nd option) if we want to
> > make sure we don't want to rely on this, at least for portability
> > purposes.
>
> Ok, thanks, have updated CFLAGS in these two patches locally:
>
> [PATCH v1 7/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64le
> [PATCH v1 8/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64
>
> what about the other ones? I'm ready to send v2 ;-)
I have not had the time to review them yet. Please just don't send
another series yet, that just adds more noise and makes it hard to
distinguish all of them. I hope to be able to check these and hopefully
the tinyconfig series by the week-end.
Thanks,
Willy
Hi Zhangjin,
On 2023-07-19 14:49:12+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:56:37AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > > It made me recalled I have at last disabled (not enabled for tinyconfig) the following options:
> > >
> > > CONFIG_ALTIVEC
> > > CONFIG_VSX --> This option enables kernel support for the Vector Scaler extensions
> > >
> > > Or we can disable the vsx instructions explicitly:
> > >
> > > -mno-vsx
> > >
> > > Both of them work well, but I prefer -mno-vsx for to get a faster build, what about you?
> > >
> > > +CFLAGS_powerpc64 = -m64 -mbig-endian -Wl,-EB,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> > > +CFLAGS_powerpc64le = -m64 -mlittle-endian -Wl,-EL,-melf64ppc -mno-vsx
> > >
> > > So, this patch itself is wrong, let's drop it from the next revision.
> >
> > Better explicitly disable it in the CFLAGS (2nd option) if we want to
> > make sure we don't want to rely on this, at least for portability
> > purposes.
>
> Ok, thanks, have updated CFLAGS in these two patches locally:
>
> [PATCH v1 7/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64le
> [PATCH v1 8/8] selftests/nolibc: add test support for powerpc64
>
> what about the other ones? I'm ready to send v2 ;-)
Unfortunately I won't have the time for a proper review this week.
Thomas