Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAABZP2xJRGhPmfB-PrfesQKzP7fsuZsj+3TewAiLLW8u=YK4dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEXW_YSSGYgqTpxqbYikCFS9t=2f+L-0phbU+gAAngB5z-FbyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZEXOMC2casTlobE1@boqun-archlinux> <87fs8pzalj.fsf@mail.concordia>
 <20230424151351.GP19790@gate.crashing.org> <ZEagN1jJwg+rUzX4@boqun-archlinux>
 <CAEXW_YRfetnhgCw5OgnwhgZF_U+UkHN=uy=L8ovGLqn1UCtfTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230425101324.GD1331236@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAABZP2ypJ98T3XAqPnLrxxzrYckSQ6sn3woEmpigQ+cRRaw=Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEXW_YQEarLt7YGQZdwmcSyZcGRCGKf89ovxjQdXBO-TgXAk-w@mail.gmail.com> <528b2adc-9955-5545-9e9d-affd1f935838@csgroup.eu>
In-Reply-To: <528b2adc-9955-5545-9e9d-affd1f935838@csgroup.eu>
From:   Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:49:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CAABZP2zW7aTPChjvZMA1bECdOdFUdTd-q+vEJXJnH2zPU+uR8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk_fail
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "lance@osuosl.org" <lance@osuosl.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:40=E2=80=AFPM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 25/04/2023 =C3=A0 13:06, Joel Fernandes a =C3=A9crit :
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:58=E2=80=AFAM Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:13=E2=80=AFPM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infrade=
ad.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:55:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>>> This is amazing debugging Boqun, like a boss! One comment below:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Or something simple I haven't thought of? :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At what points can r13 change?  Only when some particular function=
s are
> >>>>>> called?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r13 is the local paca:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          register struct paca_struct *local_paca asm("r13");
> >>>>>
> >>>>> , which is a pointer to percpu data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So if a task schedule from one CPU to anotehr CPU, the value gets
> >>>>> changed.
> >>>>
> >>>> It appears the whole issue, per your analysis, is that the stack
> >>>> checking code in gcc should not cache or alias r13, and must read it=
s
> >>>> most up-to-date value during stack checking, as its value may have
> >>>> changed during a migration to a new CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>> Did I get that right?
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, even without a reproducer, gcc on PPC should just not do that,
> >>>> that feels terribly broken for the kernel. I wonder what clang does,
> >>>> I'll go poke around with compilerexplorer after lunch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adding +Peter Zijlstra as well to join the party as I have a feeling
> >>>> he'll be interested. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> I'm a little confused; the way I understand the whole stack protector
> >>> thing to work is that we push a canary on the stack at call and on
> >>> return check it is still valid. Since in general tasks randomly migra=
te,
> >>> the per-cpu validation canary should be the same on all CPUs.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, the 'new' __srcu_read_{,un}lock_nmisafe() functions use
> >>> raw_cpu_ptr() to get 'a' percpu sdp, preferably that of the local cpu=
,
> >>> but no guarantees.
> >>>
> >>> Both cases use r13 (paca) in a racy manner, and in both cases it shou=
ld
> >>> be safe.
> >> New test results today: both gcc build from git (git clone
> >> git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git) and Ubuntu 22.04 gcc-12.1.0
> >> are immune from the above issue. We can see the assembly code on
> >> http://140.211.169.189/0425/srcu_gp_start_if_needed-gcc-12.txt
> >>
> >> while
> >> Both native gcc on PPC vm (gcc version 9.4.0), and gcc cross compiler
> >> on my x86 laptop (gcc version 10.4.0) will reproduce the bug.
> >
> > Do you know what fixes the issue? I would not declare victory yet. My
> > feeling is something changes in timing, or compiler codegen which
> > hides the issue. So the issue is still there but it is just a matter
> > of time before someone else reports it.
> >
> > Out of curiosity for PPC folks, why cannot 64-bit PPC use per-task
> > canary? Michael, is this an optimization? Adding Christophe as well
> > since it came in a few years ago via the following commit:
>
> It uses per-task canary. But unlike PPC32, PPC64 doesn't have a fixed
> register pointing to 'current' at all time so the canary is copied into
> a per-cpu struct during _switch().
>
> If GCC keeps an old value of the per-cpu struct pointer, it then gets
> the canary from the wrong CPU struct so from a different task.
This is a fruitful learning process for me!
Christophe:
Do you think there is still a need to bisect GCC ? If so, I am very
glad to continue

Cheers
Zhouyi
>
> Christophe
>
> >
> > commit 06ec27aea9fc84d9c6d879eb64b5bcf28a8a1eb7
> > Author: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> > Date:   Thu Sep 27 07:05:55 2018 +0000
> >
> >      powerpc/64: add stack protector support
> >
> >      On PPC64, as register r13 points to the paca_struct at all time,
> >      this patch adds a copy of the canary there, which is copied at
> >      task_switch.
> >      That new canary is then used by using the following GCC options:
> >      -mstack-protector-guard=3Dtls
> >      -mstack-protector-guard-reg=3Dr13
> >      -mstack-protector-guard-offset=3Doffsetof(struct paca_struct, cana=
ry))
> >
> >      Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> >      Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> >
> >   - Joel