On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 17:34, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:50:02PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..e82183e4914f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> > +{
> > + "BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg",
> > + .insns = {
> > + /* a = 0; */
> > + /*
> > + * Note this is implemented with two separate instructions,
> > + * where you might think one would suffice:
> > + *
> > + * BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> > + *
> > + * This is because BPF_ST_MEM doesn't seem to set the stack slot
> > + * type to 0 when storing an immediate.
> > + */
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> > + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
> > + /* b = atomic_fetch_add(&a, 1); */
> > + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
> > + BPF_ATOMIC_OP(BPF_DW, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_1, -8),
> > + /* Verifier should be able to tell that this infinite loop isn't reachable. */
> > + /* if (b) while (true) continue; */
> > + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, -1),
> > + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > + },
> > + .result = ACCEPT,
> > + .result_unpriv = REJECT,
> > + .errstr_unpriv = "back-edge",
> > +},
> >
> > base-commit: 61ca36c8c4eb3bae35a285b1ae18c514cde65439
> > --
> > 2.30.0.365.g02bc693789-goog
> >
>
> hi,
> I tracked soft lock up on powerpc to this test:
>
> [root@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 bpf]# ./test_verifier 25
> #25/u BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg SKIP
> #25/p BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg
>
> Message from syslogd@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 at Jun 27 11:24:34 ...
> kernel:watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [test_verifier:1055]
>
> Message from syslogd@ibm-p9z-07-lp1 at Jun 27 11:25:04 ...
> kernel:watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 48s! [test_verifier:1055]
>
> please check the console output below.. it looks like the verifier
> allowed the loop to happen for some reason on powerpc.. any idea?
>
> I'm on latest bpf-next/master, I can send the config if needed
>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
>
> ---
> ibm-p9z-07-lp1 login: [ 184.108655] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [test_verifier:1055]
> [ 184.108679] Modules linked in: snd_seq_dummy(E) snd_hrtimer(E) snd_seq(E) snd_seq_device(E) snd_timer(E) snd(E) soundcore(E) bonding(E) tls(E) rfkill(E) pseries_rng(E) drm(E) fuse(E) drm_panel_orientation_quirks(E) xfs(E) libcrc32c(E) sd_mod(E) t10_pi(E) ibmvscsi(E) ibmveth(E) scsi_transport_srp(E) vmx_crypto(E) dm_mirror(E) dm_region_hash(E) dm_log(E) dm_mod(E)
> [ 184.108722] CPU: 2 PID: 1055 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G E 5.13.0-rc3+ #3
> [ 184.108728] NIP: c00800000131314c LR: c000000000c56918 CTR: c008000001313118
> [ 184.108733] REGS: c0000000119ef820 TRAP: 0900 Tainted: G E (5.13.0-rc3+)
> [ 184.108739] MSR: 8000000000009033 <SF,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE> CR: 44222840 XER: 20040003
> [ 184.108752] CFAR: c008000001313150 IRQMASK: 0
> [ 184.108752] GPR00: c000000000c5671c c0000000119efac0 c000000002a08400 0000000000000001
> [ 184.108752] GPR04: c0080000010c0048 ffffffffffffffff 0000000001f3f8ec 0000000000000008
> [ 184.108752] GPR08: 0000000000000000 c0000000119efae8 0000000000000001 49adb8fcb8417937
> [ 184.108752] GPR12: c008000001313118 c00000001ecae400 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108752] GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 c0000000021cf6f8
> [ 184.108752] GPR20: 0000000000000000 c0000000119efc34 c0000000119efc30 c0080000010c0048
> [ 184.108752] GPR24: c00000000a1dc100 0000000000000001 c000000011fadc80 c0000000021cf638
> [ 184.108752] GPR28: c0080000010c0000 0000000000000001 c0000000021cf638 c0000000119efaf0
> [ 184.108812] NIP [c00800000131314c] bpf_prog_a2eb9104e5e8a5bf+0x34/0xcee8
> [ 184.108819] LR [c000000000c56918] bpf_test_run+0x2f8/0x470
> [ 184.108826] Call Trace:
> [ 184.108828] [c0000000119efac0] [c0000000119efb30] 0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)
> [ 184.108835] [c0000000119efb30] [c000000000c5671c] bpf_test_run+0xfc/0x470
> [ 184.108841] [c0000000119efc10] [c000000000c57b6c] bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x38c/0x660
> [ 184.108848] [c0000000119efcb0] [c00000000035de6c] __sys_bpf+0x46c/0xd60
> [ 184.108854] [c0000000119efd90] [c00000000035e810] sys_bpf+0x30/0x40
> [ 184.108859] [c0000000119efdb0] [c00000000002ea34] system_call_exception+0x144/0x280
> [ 184.108866] [c0000000119efe10] [c00000000000c570] system_call_vectored_common+0xf0/0x268
> [ 184.108874] --- interrupt: 3000 at 0x7fff8bb3ef24
> [ 184.108878] NIP: 00007fff8bb3ef24 LR: 0000000000000000 CTR: 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108883] REGS: c0000000119efe80 TRAP: 3000 Tainted: G E (5.13.0-rc3+)
> [ 184.108887] MSR: 800000000280f033 <SF,VEC,VSX,EE,PR,FP,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE> CR: 28000848 XER: 00000000
> [ 184.108903] IRQMASK: 0
> [ 184.108903] GPR00: 0000000000000169 00007fffe4577710 00007fff8bc27200 000000000000000a
> [ 184.108903] GPR04: 00007fffe45777b8 0000000000000080 0000000000000001 0000000000000008
> [ 184.108903] GPR08: 000000000000000a 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108903] GPR12: 0000000000000000 00007fff8be1c400 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108903] GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108903] GPR20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 184.108903] GPR24: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 000000001000d1d0
> [ 184.108903] GPR28: 0000000000000002 00007fffe4578128 00007fffe45782c0 00007fffe4577710
> [ 184.108960] NIP [00007fff8bb3ef24] 0x7fff8bb3ef24
> [ 184.108964] LR [0000000000000000] 0x0
> [ 184.108967] --- interrupt: 3000
> [ 184.108970] Instruction dump:
> [ 184.108974] 60000000 f821ff91 fbe10068 3be10030 39000000 f91ffff8 38600001 393ffff8
> [ 184.108985] 7d4048a8 7d4a1a14 7d4049ad 4082fff4 <28230000> 4082fffc 60000000 ebe10068
Hmm, is the test prog from atomic_bounds.c getting JITed there (my
dumb guess at what '0xc0000000119efb30 (unreliable)' means)? That
shouldn't happen - should get 'eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d)
unsupported\n' in dmesg instead. I wonder if I missed something in
commit 91c960b0056 (bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other
atomics in .imm). Any idea if this test was ever passing on PowerPC?
