Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk_fail

[Zhouyi Zhou]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 7:06 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:58 AM Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > hi
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:13 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 functions 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 its
> > > > 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 migrate,
> > > 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 should
> > > 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.
I am going to try bisect on GCC, hope we can find some clue.
>
> 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:
>
> commit 06ec27aea9fc84d9c6d879eb64b5bcf28a8a1eb7
> Author: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
> 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=tls
>     -mstack-protector-guard-reg=r13
>     -mstack-protector-guard-offset=offsetof(struct paca_struct, canary))
>
>     Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>  - Joel