From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 18:45:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C22106566B for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:45:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15038FC08 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qcse13 with SMTP id e13so3569920qcs.13 for ; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:45:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ohG0q/c6mbyQItfAbPTH3UM/iHSuDyF9ed29PlaOwA0=; b=cAXIgR1IpJhHrX4c9tcA/4xULjt5H4IzfEMQfWziEJUEeVT93qqUlmtBhxA36BKbhw YvPHD3msCIZtSFeKXA2gQCh5WkJH7cjbLBncnE/oGtaDg9vJXdHuOsEAPvJ9c47GH80j CkdpSMpkmIjikg32i7XytuikZk9wGsSt1irGI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.217.195 with SMTP id pa3mr4955542igc.12.1323456311790; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:45:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:45:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.18 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:45:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20111119100150.GA1560@reks> <20111208090159.GA1924@cq1> <4EE0EB8C.7050800@freebsd.org> <6D023449-EDEA-4B1C-975D-54AA2F4328CE@semihalf.com> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:45:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Arnaud Lacombe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, Gleb Kurtsou , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Piotr Nowak , Rafal Jaworowski , Nathan Whitehorn Subject: Re: gcc 4.2 miscompilation with -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:45:13 -0000 On 9 Dec 2011 17:51, "Arnaud Lacombe" wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote: > > > > On 2011-12-08, at 17:53, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > > >> On 12/08/11 03:01, Piotr Nowak wrote: > >>> We're working on PowerPC target using GCC 4.2.1 > >>> and FreeBSD 6.1. It seems like we have similar > >>> problem. In our case GCC sometimes very unfortunately > >>> optimize code with -fno-omit-frame-pointer. > >>> > >>> Example shown below covers file sys/powerc/booke/pmap.c > >>> and function pmap_kenter. If we disassemble kernel binary > >>> we have: > >>> > >>> c019998c: 4b ec 6a ed bl c0060478<_mtx_unlock_spin_flags> > >>> c0199990: 81 61 00 00 lwz r11,0(r1) > >>> c0199994: 80 0b 00 04 lwz r0,4(r11) > >>> c0199998: 7d 61 5b 78 mr r1,r11 > >>> c019999c: 82 ab ff d4 lwz r21,-44(r11) > >>> c01999a0: 7c 08 03 a6 mtlr r0 > >>> c01999a4: 82 cb ff d8 lwz r22,-40(r11) > >>> c01999a8: 82 eb ff dc lwz r23,-36(r11) > >>> c01999ac: 83 0b ff e0 lwz r24,-32(r11) > >>> c01999b0: 83 2b ff e4 lwz r25,-28(r11) > >>> c01999b4: 83 4b ff e8 lwz r26,-24(r11) > >>> c01999b8: 83 6b ff ec lwz r27,-20(r11) > >>> > >>> As you can see stack pointer on R1 is being updated > >>> before stashed data were pulled off stack. (mr r1,r11) > >>> As a result of this we have chance to get crash when > >>> any interrupt hit shortly after stack pointer update. > >>> The interrupt prologue will override not yet pulled off > >>> pmap_kenter function data. > >>> > >>> The problem occures only with -fno-omit-frame-pointer > >>> and not every branch returns are beeing corrupted. > >>> > >>> Do you think this issue may be somehow related to yours? > >>> Are there any patches/solutions to fix it? > >> > >> Should we turn off -fno-omit-frame-frame-pointer on PPC then? It's enabled in default kernel builds. > > > > I think that's a good idea. Even though we have managed to trigger this only in rare cases, the problem is real and the code generated is broken i.e. leads to corruption and panics. > > > How can you make any conclusion without having seen a single line of > code actually triggering the problem ? That sounds very > irresponsible... > However, if he's right it's very clever. Chris