[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:05:05 +0100
From: Arkadiusz Sienkiewicz <sienkiewiczarkadiusz@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: dalias@...c.org
Subject: Re: aio_cancel segmentation fault for in progress write requests
Here are answers to some question directed to me earlier:
> Could you attach the log from "strace -f -o strace.log ~/aioWrite"?
Sorry, can't do that. strace is not installed and I don't have root access.
If this is still needed I will ask admin to add strace.
> Do the other machines have the same kernel (4.15.0-20-generic)?
No, other machines use kernel 4.15.0-39-generic.
> Have you tried running the binary built on a successful machine on
the problematic machine?
Yes, same effect - segmentation fault. bt from gdb is identical too.
> valgrind might also be a good idea.
alpine-tmp-0:~$ strace -f ./aioWrite
-sh: strace: not found
alpine-tmp-0:~$ valgrind
valgrind valgrind-di-server valgrind-listener
alpine-tmp-0:~$ valgrind ./aioWrite
==70339== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==70339== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==70339== Using Valgrind-3.11.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==70339== Command: ./aioWrite
==70339==
==70339== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
==70339== at 0x4C92B0E: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:530)
==70339== by 0x4020248: reclaim_gaps (dynlink.c:478)
==70339== by 0x4020CD0: map_library (dynlink.c:674)
==70339== by 0x4021818: load_library (dynlink.c:980)
==70339== by 0x4022607: load_preload (dynlink.c:1075)
==70339== by 0x4022607: __dls3 (dynlink.c:1585)
==70339== by 0x4021EDB: __dls2 (dynlink.c:1389)
==70339== by 0x401FC8E: ??? (in /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1)
==70339== Address 0x4e9a180 is in a rw- mapped file
/usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so segment
==70339==
==70339== Can't extend stack to 0x4087948 during signal delivery for thread
2:
==70339== no stack segment
==70339==
==70339== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV):
dumping core
==70339== Access not within mapped region at address 0x4087948
==70339== at 0x4016834: __syscall3 (syscall_arch.h:29)
==70339== by 0x4016834: __wake (pthread_impl.h:133)
==70339== by 0x4016834: cleanup (aio.c:154)
==70339== by 0x40167B0: io_thread_func (aio.c:255)
==70339== by 0x4054292: start (pthread_create.c:145)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== by 0x4053071: ??? (clone.s:21)
==70339== If you believe this happened as a result of a stack
==70339== overflow in your program's main thread (unlikely but
==70339== possible), you can try to increase the size of the
==70339== main thread stack using the --main-stacksize= flag.
==70339== The main thread stack size used in this run was 8388608.
==70339==
==70339== HEAP SUMMARY:
==70339== in use at exit: 81,051 bytes in 9 blocks
==70339== total heap usage: 9 allocs, 3 frees, 81,051 bytes allocated
==70339==
==70339== LEAK SUMMARY:
==70339== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==70339== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==70339== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==70339== still reachable: 81,051 bytes in 9 blocks
==70339== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==70339== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==70339==
==70339== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==70339== ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
Killed
sob., 8 gru 2018 o 17:18 Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> napisał(a):
> * Rich Felker:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 09:06:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Rich Felker:
> >>
> >> > I don't think so. I'm concerned that it's a stack overflow, and that
> >> > somehow the kernel folks have managed to break the MINSIGSTKSZ ABI.
> >>
> >> Probably:
> >>
> >> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20305>
> >> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22636>
> >>
> >> It's a nasty CPU backwards compatibility problem. Some of the
> >> suggestions I made to work around this are simply wrong; don't take them
> >> too seriously.
> >>
> >> Nowadays, the kernel has a way to disable the %zmm registers, but it
> >> unfortunately does not reduce the save area size.
> >
> > How large is the saved context with the %zmm junk? I measured just
> > ~768 bytes on normal x86_64 without it, and since 2048 is rounded up
> > to a whole page (4096), overflow should not happen until the signal
> > context is something like 3.5k (allowing ~512 bytes for TCB (~128) and
> > 2 simple call frames).
>
> I wrote a test to do some measurements:
>
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-12/msg00271.html>
>
> The signal handler context is quite large on x86-64 with AVX-512F,
> indeed around 3.5 KiB. It is even larger on ppc64 and ppc64el
> (~4.5 KiB), which I find somewhat surprising.
>
> The cancellation test also includes stack usage from the libgcc
> unwinder. Its stack usage likely differs between versions, so I should
> have included that in the reported results.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
