On Fri, 23 Dec 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2016, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> > > On 22-12-2016 23:01, Allen Samuels wrote:
> > > > I believe I mis-read the data. What I've seen before doesn't fit this data.
> > > >
> > > > If it fails in unit test, it shouldn't be hard to just set a HW breakpoint on the vptr and see who the culprit is.
> > >
> > > Well the _raw class is properly initialised:
> > > $8 = {_vptr$raw = 0x817578 <vtable for ceph::buffer::raw+16>,
> > >
> > > And is "upgraded" to a different class:
> > > ceph::buffer::raw_combined
> > >
> > > But here is the problem...
> > >
> > > Hardware watchpoint 5: *0x1054048
> > >
> > > Old value = 8484744
> > > New value = 0
> > > 0x000000000049ab29 in denc_traits<unsigned long, void>::encode
> > > (o=@0x10501d0: 123, p=..., f=0) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:228
> > > 228 WRITE_INT_DENC(uint64_t, __le64);
> >
> > Ah, okay, this is making a bit more sense now.
> >
> > raw_combined is trying to be clever. It has a static create() method to
> >
> > - allocate an aligned buffer of size len + sizeof(raw_combined) (with some
> > rounding up), call it *ptr
> > - in-place initiailize raw_combined at ptr + len (rounded up), call it *this
> > - store the the actual data at ptr
> > - return the raw_combined *this
> >
> > It has an overloaded delete operator to free the entire allocate
> > (roughly this - len) to make this work.
> >
> > It sounds a bit like the write into raw_combined's data portion (ptr) is
> > clobbering vptr. Which probably suggests we wrote too much into the
> > buffer. Can you print the contents of the raw_combined class and the
> > appender?
>
> Hmm, I jumped to a much older commit and the valgrind warnigns go away; I
> think it's related to the buffer mempools. Bisecting.
Weird. The valgrind warnings are caused by
e630d74c6457a7f1fe71fb4ed2f15a7ef9114fe8, which makes unittest_denc
link against tcmalloc and libunwind. I'm not really sure why that would
affect valgrind's delete vs delete[] detection... :/ It seems like that
would be intercepted and checked above tcmalloc.
sage
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The traceback:
> > > #0 0x000000000049ab29 in denc_traits<unsigned long, void>::encode
> > > (o=@0x10501d0: 123, p=..., f=0) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:228
> > > #1 0x000000000049a7a8 in denc<unsigned long, denc_traits<unsigned long,
> > > void> > (o=@0x10501d0: 123, p=..., features=0) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:479
> > > #2 0x000000000049a6a5 in _denc_friend<foo_t const,
> > > ceph::buffer::list::contiguous_appender> (v=..., p=...) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/test/test_denc.cc:155
> > > #3 0x000000000049a62d in foo_t::encode (this=0x10501c8, p=...) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/test/test_denc.cc:152
> > > #4 0x000000000049a601 in denc_traits<foo_t, void>::encode (v=...,
> > > p=..., f=0) at /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/test/test_denc.cc:163
> > > #5 0x000000000049a188 in denc<foo_t, denc_traits<foo_t, void> > (o=...,
> > > p=..., features=0) at /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:479
> > > #6 0x000000000049a0ac in
> > > denc_traits<std::__1::map<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >, foo_t,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>,
> > > std::__1::allocator<char> > >,
> > > std::__1::allocator<std::__1::pair<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const, foo_t> >
> > > >, void>::encode<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > > (v=..., p=...)
> > > at /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:1010
> > > #7 0x0000000000494581 in
> > > denc<std::__1::map<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >, foo_t,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>,
> > > std::__1::allocator<char> > >,
> > > std::__1::allocator<std::__1::pair<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const, foo_t> >
> > > >, denc_traits<std::__1::map<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >, foo_t,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>,
> > > std::__1::allocator<char> > >,
> > > std::__1::allocator<std::__1::pair<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const, foo_t> >
> > > >, void> > (o=..., p=..., features=0) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/include/denc.h:479
> > > #8 0x0000000000490fb1 in
> > > test_denc<std::__1::map<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >, foo_t,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>,
> > > std::__1::allocator<char> > >,
> > > std::__1::allocator<std::__1::pair<std::__1::basic_string<char,
> > > std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const, foo_t> >
> > > > > (v=...) at /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/test/test_denc.cc:49
> > > #9 0x00000000004904e0 in denc_map_Test::TestBody (this=0x1038030) at
> > > /usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/test/test_denc.cc:206
> > >
> > > (gdb) p p
> > > $10 = (ceph::buffer::list::contiguous_appender &) @0x7fffffffd948: {pbl
> > > = 0x7fffffffd978, pos = 0x105404f "", bp = {_raw = 0x1054048, _off = 0,
> > > _len = 72}, deep = false,
> > > out_of_band_offset = 0}
> > > (gdb) p *p.bp._raw
> > > $17 = {_vptr$raw = 0x0, data = 0x1054000 "\003", len = 72, nref = {val =
> > > 1}, crc_spinlock = 0, crc_map = {__tree_ = {__begin_node_ = 0x1054078,
> > > __pair1_ =
> > > {<std::__1::__libcpp_compressed_pair_imp<std::__1::__tree_end_node<std::__1::__tree_node_base<void*>*>,
> > > std::__1::allocator<std::__1::__tree_node<std::__1::__value_type<std::__1::pair<unsigned
> > > long, unsigned long>, std::__1::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int> >,
> > > void*> >, 2>> =
> > > {<std::__1::allocator<std::__1::__tree_node<std::__1::__value_type<std::__1::pair<unsigned
> > > long, unsigned long>, std::__1::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int> >,
> > > void*> >> = {<No data fields>}, __first_ = {
> > > __left_ = 0x0}}, <No data fields>},
> > > __pair3_ = {<std::__1::__libcpp_compressed_pair_imp<unsigned long,
> > > std::__1::__map_value_compare<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned
> > > long>, std::__1::__value_type<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned
> > > long>, std::__1::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int> >,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> >, true>,
> > > 2>> = {<std::__1::__map_value_compare<std::__1::pair<unsigned long,
> > > unsigned long>, std::__1::__value_type<std::__1::pair<unsigned long,
> > > unsigned long>, std::__1::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int> >,
> > > std::__1::less<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> >, true>> =
> > > {<std::__1::less<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> >> =
> > > {<std::__1::binary_function<std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned
> > > long>, std::__1::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long>, bool>> = {<No data
> > > fields>}, <No data fields>}, <No data fields>},
> > > __first_ = 0}, <No data fields>}}}}
> > >
> > > (gdb) disassemble
> > > Dump of assembler code for function denc_traits<unsigned long,
> > > void>::encode(unsigned long const&,
> > > ceph::buffer::list::contiguous_appender&, unsigned long):
> > > 0x000000000049aaf0 <+0>: push %rbp
> > > 0x000000000049aaf1 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
> > > 0x000000000049aaf4 <+4>: sub $0x20,%rsp
> > > 0x000000000049aaf8 <+8>: mov $0x8,%eax
> > > 0x000000000049aafd <+13>: mov %eax,%ecx
> > > 0x000000000049aaff <+15>: mov %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
> > > 0x000000000049ab03 <+19>: mov %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
> > > 0x000000000049ab07 <+23>: mov %rdx,-0x18(%rbp)
> > > 0x000000000049ab0b <+27>: mov -0x8(%rbp),%rdx
> > > 0x000000000049ab0f <+31>: mov (%rdx),%rdx
> > > 0x000000000049ab12 <+34>: mov -0x10(%rbp),%rdi
> > > 0x000000000049ab16 <+38>: mov %rcx,%rsi
> > > 0x000000000049ab19 <+41>: mov %rdx,-0x20(%rbp)
> > > 0x000000000049ab1d <+45>: callq 0x49a1d0
> > > <ceph::buffer::list::contiguous_appender::get_pos_add(unsigned long)>
> > > 0x000000000049ab22 <+50>: mov -0x20(%rbp),%rcx
> > > 0x000000000049ab26 <+54>: mov %rcx,(%rax)
> > > => 0x000000000049ab29 <+57>: add $0x20,%rsp
> > > 0x000000000049ab2d <+61>: pop %rbp
> > > 0x000000000049ab2e <+62>: retq
> > > End of assembler dump.
> > >
> > > (gdb) info registers
> > > rax 0x1054047 17121351
> > > rbx 0x0 0
> > > rcx 0x7b 123
> > > rdx 0x7b 123
> > > rsi 0x7fffffffd948 140737488345416
> > > rdi 0x105404f 17121359
> > > rbp 0x7fffffffd4f0 0x7fffffffd4f0
> > > rsp 0x7fffffffd4d0 0x7fffffffd4d0
> > > r8 0x0 0
> > > r9 0x0 0
> > > r10 0x0 0
> > > r11 0x829100 8556800
> > > r12 0x7fffffffe910 140737488349456
> > > r13 0x7fffffffe928 140737488349480
> > > r14 0x7fffffffe918 140737488349464
> > > r15 0x1 1
> > > rip 0x49ab29 0x49ab29 <denc_traits<unsigned long,
> > > void>::encode(unsigned long const&,
> > > ceph::buffer::list::contiguous_appender&, unsigned long)+57>
> > >
> > > And this is wierd:
> > > %rax contains 0x1054047
> > > _raw is 0x1054048
> > >
> > > So writing %rcx to (%rax) is definitly going to overwrite the larger
> > > part of _raw.
> > >
> > > So now the question transforms into:
> > > Why does %rax hold this wierd value ??
> > > or Why does get_pos_add(sizeof(etype)) a negative offset ??
> > >
> > > Got to go and do real dayjob work.
> > >
> > > --WjW
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
