On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:13:07AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2025 10:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 14/03/2025 8:44 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 14.03.2025 09:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 09:24:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 13.03.2025 16:30, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>>> When enabling UBSAN with clang, the following error is triggered during
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> build:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> common/wait.c:154:9: error: symbol '.L_wq_resume' is already defined
> >>>>> 154 | "push %%rbx; push %%rbp; push %%r12;"
> >>>>> | ^
> >>>>> <inline asm>:1:121: note: instantiated into assembly here
> >>>>> 1 | push %rbx; push %rbp; push %r12;push %r13; push %r14;
> >>>>> push %r15;sub %esp,%ecx;cmp $4096, %ecx;ja .L_skip;mov
> >>>>> %rsp,%rsi;.L_wq_resume: rep movsb;mov %rsp,%rsi;.L_skip:pop %r15; pop
> >>>>> %r14; pop %r13;pop %r12; pop %rbp; pop %rbx
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> ^
> >>>>> common/wait.c:154:9: error: symbol '.L_skip' is already defined
> >>>>> 154 | "push %%rbx; push %%rbp; push %%r12;"
> >>>>> | ^
> >>>>> <inline asm>:1:159: note: instantiated into assembly here
> >>>>> 1 | push %rbx; push %rbp; push %r12;push %r13; push %r14;
> >>>>> push %r15;sub %esp,%ecx;cmp $4096, %ecx;ja .L_skip;mov
> >>>>> %rsp,%rsi;.L_wq_resume: rep movsb;mov %rsp,%rsi;.L_skip:pop %r15; pop
> >>>>> %r14; pop %r13;pop %r12; pop %rbp; pop %rbx
> >>>>> |
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ^
> >>>>> 2 errors generated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The inline assembly block in __prepare_to_wait() is duplicated, thus
> >>>>> leading to multiple definitions of the otherwise unique labels inside
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> assembly block. GCC extended-asm documentation notes the possibility of
> >>>>> duplicating asm blocks:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Under certain circumstances, GCC may duplicate (or remove duplicates
> >>>>>> of)
> >>>>>> your assembly code when optimizing. This can lead to unexpected
> >>>>>> duplicate
> >>>>>> symbol errors during compilation if your asm code defines symbols or
> >>>>>> labels. Using ‘%=’ (see AssemblerTemplate) may help resolve this
> >>>>>> problem.
> >>>>> Move the assembly blocks that deal with saving and restoring the current
> >>>>> CPU context into it's own explicitly non-inline functions. This
> >>>>> prevents
> >>>>> clang from duplicating the assembly blocks. Just using noinline
> >>>>> attribute
> >>>>> seems to be enough to prevent assembly duplication, in the future
> >>>>> noclone
> >>>>> might also be required if asm block duplication issues arise again.
> >>>> Wouldn't it be a far easier / less intrusive change to simply append %=
> >>>> to
> >>>> the label names?
> >>> That won't work AFAICT, as the inline asm in check_wakeup_from_wait()
> >>> won't be able to make a jump to the .L_wq_resume label defined in the
> >>> __prepare_to_wait() assembly block if the label is declared as
> >>> .L_wq_resume%=.
> >>>
> >>> Also we want to make sure there's a single .L_wq_resume seeing how
> >>> check_wakeup_from_wait() uses it as the restore entry point?
> >> Hmm, yes on both points; the %= would only work for .Lskip. Have you gained
> >> understanding why there is this duplication? The breaking out of the asm()
> >> that you do isn't going to be reliable, as in principle the compiler is
> >> still permitted to duplicate stuff. Afaict the only reliable way is to move
> >> the code to a separate assembly file (with the asm() merely JMPing there,
> >> providing a pseudo-return-address by some custom means). Or to a file-scope
> >> asm(), as those can't be duplicated.
> >
> > See the simplified example in
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/92161
> >
> > When I debugged this a while back, The multiple uses of wqv->esp (one
> > explicit after the asm, one as an asm parameter) gain pointer
> > sanitisation, so the structure looks like:
> >
> > ...
> > if ( bad pointer )
> > __ubsan_report();
> > asm volatile (...);
> > if ( bad pointer )
> > __ubsan_report();
> > ...
> >
> > which then got transformed to:
> >
> > if ( bad pointer )
> > {
> > __ubsan_report();
> > asm volatile (...);
> > __ubsan_report();
> > }
> > else
> > asm volatile (...);
>
> But isn't it then going to be enough to latch &wqv->esp into a local variable,
> and use that in the asm() and in the subsequent if()?
I have the following diff which seems to prevent the duplication,
would you both be OK with this approach?
Thanks, Roger.
---
diff --git a/xen/common/wait.c b/xen/common/wait.c
index cb6f5ff3c20a..60ebd58a0abd 100644
--- a/xen/common/wait.c
+++ b/xen/common/wait.c
@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ static void __prepare_to_wait(struct waitqueue_vcpu *wqv)
struct cpu_info *cpu_info = get_cpu_info();
struct vcpu *curr = current;
unsigned long dummy;
+ void *esp = NULL;
ASSERT(wqv->esp == NULL);
@@ -166,12 +167,12 @@ static void __prepare_to_wait(struct waitqueue_vcpu *wqv)
".L_skip:"
"pop %%r15; pop %%r14; pop %%r13;"
"pop %%r12; pop %%rbp; pop %%rbx"
- : "=&S" (wqv->esp), "=&c" (dummy), "=&D" (dummy)
+ : "=&S" (esp), "=&c" (dummy), "=&D" (dummy)
: "0" (0), "1" (cpu_info), "2" (wqv->stack),
[sz] "i" (PAGE_SIZE)
: "memory", "rax", "rdx", "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11" );
- if ( unlikely(wqv->esp == NULL) )
+ if ( unlikely(esp == NULL) )
{
gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Stack too large in %s\n", __func__);
domain_crash(curr->domain);
@@ -179,6 +180,7 @@ static void __prepare_to_wait(struct waitqueue_vcpu *wqv)
for ( ; ; )
do_softirq();
}
+ wqv->esp = esp;
}
static void __finish_wait(struct waitqueue_vcpu *wqv)
