riscv: llvm-compiler: calling convention violation: temporary register $t2 is used to pass the ninth function parameter
Changbin Du
changbin.du at huawei.com
Thu May 12 01:30:07 PDT 2022
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 01:07:14PM -0700, Craig Topper wrote:
> I’m guessing that because the function is static, the calling convention was changed to fastcall which allows us to ignore the ABI.
>
I think so. But the mcount function assumes the ABI is not changed.
> > On May 11, 2022, at 11:39 AM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:54 PM Changbin Du <changbin.du at huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [This is a resent to correct llvm mailist.]
> >>
> >> Hello, folks,
> >>
> >> Recently I encountered a kernel crash problem when using ftrace with 'perf ftrace'
> >> command on risc-v kernel built with llvm.
> >>
> >> This crash only exists on llvm build, not reproducable with GCC. So I hope llvm
> >> guys can take a look :)
> >>
> >> The llvm versions I have tried are llvm-13.0.0 and mainline (commit 102bc634cb
> >> ("[runtime] Build compiler-rt with --unwindlib=none")).
> >>
> >> [ 612.947887][ T496] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000001
> >> [ 613.050789][ T496] Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
> >> [ 613.087976][ T496] epc : __find_rr_leaf+0x128/0x220
> >> [ 613.107493][ T496] ra : return_to_handler+0x22/0x24
> >> [ 613.125322][ T496] epc : ffffffff80a1915a ra : ffffffff80009506 sp : ff20000011e43860
> >> [ 613.150124][ T496] gp : ffffffff81812f40 tp : ff6000008bb01580 t0 : ff600000806cf0f0
> >> [ 613.173657][ T496] t1 : 000000000001b29a t2 : 0000000000000001 s0 : ff20000011e43920
> >> [ 613.187311][ T496] s1 : ff600000848c2a00 a0 : 0000000000000002 a1 : 0000000000000002
> >> [ 613.202731][ T496] a2 : fffffffffffffffd a3 : ff6000009d287000 a4 : 00000000000002c0
> >> [ 613.213723][ T496] a5 : ff6000009d259b40 a6 : ffffffffffffff9c a7 : ffffffffffffffff
> >> [ 613.226648][ T496] s2 : 0000000000000001 s3 : ff20000011e439d8 s4 : ffffffff8160d140
> >> [ 613.246571][ T496] s5 : 0000000000000002 s6 : 0000000000000000 s7 : 0000000000000000
> >> [ 613.264681][ T496] s8 : 0000000000000064 s9 : 0000000000000000 s10: 0000000000400000
> >> [ 613.277999][ T496] s11: ff600000848c2aa8 t3 : 0000000000000290 t4 : 00000000004002c0
> >> [ 613.303729][ T496] t5 : 00000000ffffffff t6 : ff6000009d2872d0
> >> [ 613.322145][ T496] status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000001 cause: 000000000000000d
> >> [ 613.346228][ T496] [<ffffffff80a12526>] ip6_pol_route+0xb6/0x602
> >> [ 613.365722][ T496] [<ffffffff80a1321a>] ip6_pol_route_output+0x2c/0x34
> >> [ 613.386374][ T496] [<ffffffff80a1c028>] fib6_rule_lookup+0x36/0xa0
> >> [ 613.401865][ T496] [<ffffffff80a131da>] ip6_route_output_flags_noref+0xd6/0xea
> >> [ 613.412776][ T496] [<ffffffff80a13274>] ip6_route_output_flags+0x52/0xd4
> >> [ 613.432013][ T496] [<ffffffff809ffb3a>] ip6_dst_lookup_tail+0x68/0x23a
> >> [ 613.456198][ T496] [<ffffffff809ffec6>] ip6_sk_dst_lookup_flow+0x132/0x1cc
> >> [ 613.513174][ T496] [<ffffffff80003cd8>] ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x2
> >> [ 613.518973][ T496] [<ffffffff800094e4>] return_to_handler+0x0/0x24
> >> [ 613.563961][ T496] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
> >> [ 613.572278][ T496] SMP: stopping secondary CPUs
> >> [ 613.587449][ T496] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception ]---
> >>
> >> The crash happened when dereferencing the point 'mpri' at route.c:758.
> >>
> >> (gdb) l *__find_rr_leaf+0x128
> >> 0xffffffff809da9c4 is in __find_rr_leaf (net/ipv6/route.c:758).
> >> 753
> >> 754 if (strict & RT6_LOOKUP_F_REACHABLE)
> >> 755 rt6_probe(nh);
> >> 756
> >> 757 /* note that m can be RT6_NUD_FAIL_PROBE at this point */
> >> 758 if (m > *mpri) {
> >> 759 *do_rr = match_do_rr;
> >> 760 *mpri = m;
> >> 761 rc = true;
> >> 762 }
> >>
> >> Adding some logs, I found the problem. The ninth passed parameter of function
> >> __find_rr_leaf() which is the address of local variable 'mpri', is changed to
> >> value '0x1' when inside the function __find_rr_leaf.
> >> Here is the code snippet and full link
> >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/9cb7c013420f98fa6fd12fc6a5dc055170c108db/net/ipv6/route.c.
> >>
> >> static void find_rr_leaf(struct fib6_node *fn, struct fib6_info *leaf,
> >> struct fib6_info *rr_head, int oif, int strict,
> >> bool *do_rr, struct fib6_result *res)
> >> {
> >> u32 metric = rr_head->fib6_metric;
> >> struct fib6_info *cont = NULL;
> >> int mpri = -1;
> >>
> >> __find_rr_leaf(rr_head, NULL, metric, res, &cont,
> >> oif, strict, do_rr, &mpri);
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Then debugging with gdb, I found this probably is a compiler bug. We can see the
> >> local function __find_rr_leaf() is not optimized out and the compiler generates
> >> a local symbol for it. The find_rr_leaf() (inlined by fib6_table_lookup) invokes
> >> this function with 'jalr' instruction.
> >>
> >> (gdb) disassemble fib6_table_lookup
> >> Dump of assembler code for function fib6_table_lookup:
> >> [snip]
> >> 0xffffffff80a1240e <+412>: beqz a1,0xffffffff80a12436 <fib6_table_lookup+452>
> >> 0xffffffff80a12410 <+414>: slli a1,s9,0x20
> >> 0xffffffff80a12414 <+418>: srli a1,a1,0x20
> >> 0xffffffff80a12416 <+420>: sext.w a2,a1
> >> 0xffffffff80a1241a <+424>: addi a7,s0,-125
> >> 0xffffffff80a1241e <+428>: addi t2,s0,-124
> >> 0xffffffff80a12422 <+432>: li a1,0
> >> 0xffffffff80a12424 <+434>: mv a3,s10
> >> 0xffffffff80a12426 <+436>: li a4,0
> >> 0xffffffff80a12428 <+438>: ld a5,-152(s0)
> >> 0xffffffff80a1242c <+442>: mv a6,s8
> >> 0xffffffff80a1242e <+444>: auipc ra,0x7
> >> 0xffffffff80a12432 <+448>: jalr -686(ra) # 0xffffffff80a19180 <__find_rr_leaf>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> And at line route.c:758, the value of point 'mpri' is stored in temporary register
> >> $t2 and $s3 (copied from $t2).
> >>
> >> (gdb) info scope __find_rr_leaf
> >> [snip]
> >> Symbol mpri is multi-location:
> >> Base address 0xffffffff80a10564 Range 0xffffffff80a19190-0xffffffff80a191ae: a variable in $t2
> >> Range 0xffffffff80a191c0-0xffffffff80a191d6: a variable in $s3
> >> Range 0xffffffff80a19200-0xffffffff80a19208: a variable in $s3
> >> Range 0xffffffff80a1921e-0xffffffff80a192fe: a variable in $s3
> >> Range 0xffffffff80a1930a-0xffffffff80a19356: a variable in $s3
> >>
> >> Let's see when register $t2 is corrupted with single-step mode. Obviously, register
> >> $t2 is changed by mcount function ftrace_caller(). This is why the bug happens
> >> to ftrace.
> >>
> >> Dump of assembler code for function __find_rr_leaf:
> >> 0xffffffff80a19180 <+0>: sd ra,-8(sp) # $t2 = 0xff200000120db7b4
> >> 0xffffffff80a19184 <+4>: auipc ra,0xff5f1
> >> 0xffffffff80a19188 <+8>: jalr -1744(ra) # 0xffffffff80009ab4 <ftrace_caller> # $t2 = 0xff200000120db7b4
> >> => 0xffffffff80a1918c <+12>: ld ra,-8(sp) # $t2 = 0x1, bug, $t2 is corrupted!!
> >> 0xffffffff80a19190 <+16>: addi sp,sp,-176
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> So now we can come to a conclusion. The generated local function __find_rr_leaf()
> >> violates the risc-v calling convention and leads to the panic. It should use stack
> >> but *not* temporary register $t2 to pass the ninth parameter! It's okay if the
> >> callsite can take care of local symbol callees, but the Function Instrumentation
> >> features should be considerated carefully.
> >>
> >> For comparison, here is the result from gcc (9.2.0):
> >> (gdb) info scope __find_rr_leaf
> >> [snip]
> >> Symbol mpri is a complex DWARF expression:
> >> 0: DW_OP_fbreg 0, length 8.
> >>
> >> I also built a simple test function with 9 parameters by clang and same cflags,
> >> but cannot reproduce it. Maybe it is conditional?
> >>
> >> Simple test code:
> >> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> >> void test_func(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d, int *e, int *f, int *g, int *h, int *i)
> >> {
> >> printf("__find_rr_leaf: %d\n", *i);
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main(void)
> >> {
> >> int a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i = 100;
> >>
> >> test_func(&a,&b,&c,&d,&e,&f,&g,&h,&i);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >
> > Hmm...any chance you could come up with a more concise test case then
> > using creduce [0] or cvise [1]?
> > [0] https://embed.cs.utah.edu/creduce/
> > [1] https://github.com/marxin/cvise
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Changbin Du
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > ~Nick Desaulniers
>
--
Cheers,
Changbin Du
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list