Re: [PATCH dwarves] pahole: avoid adding same struct structure to two rb trees

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 15:04 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 04:52:40PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu:
> > On Fri, 2023-06-02 at 10:42 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Fri, May 26, 2023 at 02:59:49AM +0300, Eduard Zingerman escreveu:
> > > > When pahole is executed in '-F dwarf --sort' mode there are two places
> > > > where 'struct structure' instance could be added to the rb_tree:
> > > > 
> > > > The first is triggered from the following call stack:
> > > > 
> > > >   print_classes()
> > > >     structures__add()
> > > >       __structures__add()
> > > >         (adds to global pahole.c:structures__tree)
> > > > 
> > > > The second is triggered from the following call stack:
> > > > 
> > > >   print_ordered_classes()
> > > >     resort_classes()
> > > >       resort_add()
> > > >         (adds to local rb_tree instance)
> > > > 
> > > > Both places use the same 'struct structure::rb_node' field, so if both
> > > > code pathes are executed the final state of the 'structures__tree'
> > > > might be inconsistent.
> > > > 
> > > > For example, this could be observed when DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS build flag
> > > > is set. Here is the command line snippet that eventually leads to a
> > > > segfault:
> > > > 
> > > >   $ for i in $(seq 1 100); do \
> > > >       echo $i; \
> > > >       pahole -F dwarf --flat_arrays --sort --jobs vmlinux > /dev/null \
> > > >              || break; \
> > > >     done
> > > > 
> > > > GDB shows the following stack trace:
> > > > 
> > > >   Thread 1 "pahole" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > > >   0x00007ffff7f819ad in __rb_erase_color (node=0x7fffd4045830, parent=0x0, root=0x5555555672d8 <structures.tree>) at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/rbtree.c:134
> > > >   134			if (parent->rb_left == node)
> > > >   (gdb) bt
> > > >   #0  0x00007ffff7f819ad in __rb_erase_color (node=0x7fffd4045830, parent=0x0, root=0x5555555672d8 <structures.tree>) at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/rbtree.c:134
> > > >   #1  0x00007ffff7f82014 in rb_erase (node=0x7fff21ae5b80, root=0x5555555672d8 <structures.tree>) at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/rbtree.c:275
> > > >   #2  0x0000555555559c3d in __structures__delete () at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/pahole.c:440
> > > >   #3  0x0000555555559c70 in structures__delete () at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/pahole.c:448
> > > >   #4  0x0000555555560bb6 in main (argc=13, argv=0x7fffffffdcd8) at /home/eddy/work/dwarves-fork/pahole.c:3584
> > > > 
> > > > This commit modifies resort_classes() to re-use 'structures__tree' and
> > > > to reset 'rb_node' fields before adding structure instances to the
> > > > tree for a second time.
> > > > 
> > > > Lock/unlock structures_lock to be consistent with structures_add() and
> > > > structures__delete() code.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  pahole.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/pahole.c b/pahole.c
> > > > index 6fc4ed6..576733f 100644
> > > > --- a/pahole.c
> > > > +++ b/pahole.c
> > > > @@ -621,9 +621,9 @@ static void print_classes(struct cu *cu)
> > > >  	}
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -static void __print_ordered_classes(struct rb_root *root)
> > > > +static void __print_ordered_classes(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	struct rb_node *next = rb_first(root);
> > > > +	struct rb_node *next = rb_first(&structures__tree);
> > > >  
> > > >  	while (next) {
> > > >  		struct structure *st = rb_entry(next, struct structure, rb_node);
> > > > @@ -660,24 +660,39 @@ static void resort_add(struct rb_root *resorted, struct structure *str)
> > > >  	rb_insert_color(&str->rb_node, resorted);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -static void resort_classes(struct rb_root *resorted, struct list_head *head)
> > > > +static void resort_classes(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct structure *str;
> > > >  
> > > > -	list_for_each_entry(str, head, node)
> > > > -		resort_add(resorted, str);
> > > > +	pthread_mutex_lock(&structures_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* The need_resort flag is set by type__compare_members()
> > > > +	 * within the following call stack:
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 *   print_classes()
> > > > +	 *     structures__add()
> > > > +	 *       __structures__add()
> > > > +	 *         type__compare()
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 * The call to structures__add() registers 'struct structures'
> > > > +	 * instances in both 'structures__tree' and 'structures__list'.
> > > > +	 * In order to avoid adding same node to the tree twice reset
> > > > +	 * both the 'structures__tree' and 'str->rb_node'.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	structures__tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > > +	list_for_each_entry(str, &structures__list, node) {
> > > > +		bzero(&str->rb_node, sizeof(str->rb_node));
> > > 
> > > Why is this bzero needed?
> > > 
> > > > +		resort_add(&structures__tree, str);
> > > 
> > > resort_add will call rb_link_node(&str->rb_node, parent, p); and it, in
> > > turn:
> > > 
> > > static inline void rb_link_node(struct rb_node * node, struct rb_node * parent,
> > >                                 struct rb_node ** rb_link)
> > > {
> > >         node->rb_parent_color = (unsigned long )parent;
> > >         node->rb_left = node->rb_right = NULL;
> > > 
> > >         *rb_link = node;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > And:
> > > 
> > > struct rb_node
> > > {
> > >         unsigned long  rb_parent_color;
> > > #define RB_RED          0
> > > #define RB_BLACK        1
> > >         struct rb_node *rb_right;
> > >         struct rb_node *rb_left;
> > > } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long))))
> > > 
> > > So all the fields are being initialized in the operation right after the
> > > bzero(), no?
> > 
> > Right, you are correct.
> > The 'structures__tree = RB_ROOT' part is still necessary, though.
> > If you are ok with overall structure of the patch I can resend it w/o bzero().
> 
> Humm, so basically this boils down to the following patch?
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> diff --git a/pahole.c b/pahole.c
> index 6fc4ed6a721b97ab..7f7aa0a5db05837d 100644
> --- a/pahole.c
> +++ b/pahole.c
> @@ -674,7 +674,12 @@ static void print_ordered_classes(void)
>  		__print_ordered_classes(&structures__tree);
>  	} else {
>  		struct rb_root resorted = RB_ROOT;
> -
> +#ifdef DEBUG_CHECK_LEAKS
> +		// We'll delete structures from structures__tree, since we're
> +		// adding them to ther resorted list, better not keep
> +		// references there.
> +		structures__tree = RB_ROOT;
> +#endif

But __structures__delete iterates over structures__tree,
so it won't delete anything if code like this, right?

>  		resort_classes(&resorted, &structures__list);
>  		__print_ordered_classes(&resorted);
>  	}