Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:26:04 +0100 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: Joe Holden <joe@rewt.org.uk> Cc: "'freebsd-mips@FreeBSD.org'" <freebsd-mips@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kern/177876: [mips] kernel stack overflow panic on mips64, EdgeRouter Lite Message-ID: <5175B8FC.3030307@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <007c01ce3f9a$15044d40$3f0ce7c0$@rewt.org.uk> References: <201304220300.r3M301iY093070@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmok7m9%2B3sky1swEP6ZTnZNLpkmwTC2tOqzGNaSFwY7WmFA@mail.gmail.com> <51753506.3070901@rewt.org.uk> <CAJ-VmomKi%2BpmZ6GAjds-=RXRET=aW65dsmxe3H4m%2BfdbxoecGw@mail.gmail.com> <CACVs6=8XdAgccufabeoXEXCFGGVZ_EWJ8c-KdRz4xr9SvBxrrw@mail.gmail.com> <EBE52100-4C0F-4B61-B872-CA30B99E2940@bsdimp.com> <007c01ce3f9a$15044d40$3f0ce7c0$@rewt.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Holden wrote: > On Apr 22, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Juli Mallett wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Do an svn log in sys/mips/ or sys/vm/ and look at the changes. >>> >>> I don't know how far you can go back before you don't have the >>> edgerouter lite support, but maybe you can try going back to when >>> Juli initially committed it, and then just work your way forward. >>> >>> I think Juli did the initial work, so she knows when it came in. >>> >>> juli - I don't suppose you could spin up FreeBSD-HEAD on the >>> edgerouter lite and take a look? It's highly likely someone messed up >>> since you did your port. :( >> I can't quite imagine why EdgeRouter Lite (or Octeon more generally) >> could be a special case here; I'd be more inclined to think it was >> generally 64-bit MIPS that would be broken. (A too-conservative >> definition or something.) Except I was pretty sure I'd run -CURRENT >> more recently than those changes. >> >> The only change that is suspect in mips/ since I made my changes is >> Warner's change to include/regnum.h, which looks like there's the slim >> possibility that it could screw up register saving in N64 builds. >> That would mean that it wasn't tested with a 64-bit build, though, >> which I'm sure Warner wouldn't be so sloppy as to do. >> >> Joe, can you try reverting 249523 and seeing if that fixes things for >> you? It seems like this breaks the order of registers saved to the >> PCB, which would break syscalls with more than 4 arguments, like mmap. >> Even just looking at how the macros expand in the N64 case makes it >> pretty clear that this change was made clumsily, e.g. from >> exception.S: >> >> SAVE_REG($12, 8, $29) >> SAVE_REG($13, 9, $29) >> SAVE_REG($14, 10, $29) >> SAVE_REG($15, 11, $29) >> SAVE_REG($8, 12, $29) >> SAVE_REG($9, 13, $29) >> SAVE_REG($10, 14, $29) >> SAVE_REG($11, 15, $29) >> >> For this to not break syscalls, struct trapframe would need to be >> updated, > > Looking at the trapframe, you are right. <doh>. I did test boot a kernel > with the change, but after-the-fact software forensics suggest I built the > new kernel and tested the old one. I found the new one installed as > kenrel.oct rather than kernel.oct which I test booted... > >> or the syscall handling code. Joe, can you confirm that backing out >> 249523 fixes things for you? If it does, Adrian, would you be willing >> to handle a backout? I can't imagine finding the time for a couple of >> days, and if this is really so badly, unnecessarily broken, that >> should be fixed immediately. I hope I'm wrong. Nobody should be >> making incomplete changes on the basis of a half-baked reading of >> purportedly-conflicting documentation, and without testing. >> Yikes! > > <snip> > > I am just building a pre-commit kernel, but if you guys know what it is I'll > wait for a fix :) > > Will this also fix the trapframe issue when the box is under heavy cpu load > or is that a different issue? > Ok so that is confirmed, reverted regnum.h and it boots fine. J
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5175B8FC.3030307>