On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 01:34, 'Sean Christopherson' via syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Sept 2021 at 13:04, Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So it looks like in both cases the top fault frame is just wrong. But > > > > I would assume it's extracted by arch-dependent code, so it's > > > > suspicious that it affects both x86 and arm64... > > > > > > > > Any ideas what's happening? > > > > > > My suspicion for the x86 case is that kvm_fastop_exception is related > > > to instruction emulation and the fault occurs in an emulated > > > instruction? > > > > Why would the kernel emulate a plain MOV? > > 2a: 4c 8b 21 mov (%rcx),%r12 > > > > And it would also mean a broken unwind because the emulated > > instruction is in __d_lookup, so it should be in the stack trace. > > kvm_fastop_exception is a red herring. It's indeed related to emulation, and > while MOV emulation is common in KVM, that emulation is for KVM guests not for > the host kernel where this splat occurs (ignoring the fact that the "host" is > itself a guest). > > kvm_fastop_exception is out-of-line fixup, and certainly shouldn't be reachable > via d_lookup. It's also two instruction, XOR+RET, neither of which are in the > code stream. > > IIRC, the unwinder gets confused when given an IP that's in out-of-line code, > e.g. exception fixup like this. If you really want to find out what code blew > up, you might be able to objdump -D the kernel and search for unique, matching > disassembly, e.g. find "jmpq 0xf86d288c" and go from there. Hi Sean, Thanks for the info. I don't want to find out what code blew (it's __d_lookup). I am interested in getting the unwinder fixed to output truthful and useful frames. Is there more info on this "the unwinder gets confused"? Bug filed somewhere or an email thread? Is it on anybody's radar?
