Re: Kqueue races causing crashes

 ---- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:45:24 -0700 Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote ---- 
 > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:39:42AM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote: 
 > >  
 > >          
 > >  
 > >          
 > >             You can use dwarf4 if you use GDB from ports 
 > How would it help ? 

The following statement to a  native speaker would imply that GDB is the problem: "There is not much gdb info here; I'll try to rebuild kgdb."

If in fact %rip has been smashed that's a bit like saying "the light doesn't show anything on the table, I'll replace the light bulb" - when in fact there isn't anything on the table.  

 > Problem for kgdb is that %rip is zero, due to function pointer being set 
 > to NULL in a destroyed knlist.  Either version of kgdb would not find 
 > neither code nor unwind annotations for zero address. 
 >  
 > But the issue is understood and 

Yes. Since the initial e-mail.


> we are working on the version of fix. 

I'm glad you're on it.

-M



 >  
 >  ---- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:50:00 -0700  Peter Holm<peter_at_holm.cc> wrote ----On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:11:43AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:26:14PM -0500, Eric Badger wrote: > > I believe they all have more or less the same cause. The crashes occur  > > because we acquire a knlist lock via the KN_LIST_LOCK macro, but when we  > > call KN_LIST_UNLOCK, the knote???s knlist reference (kn->kn_knlist) has  > > been cleared by another thread. Thus we are unable to unlock the  > > previously acquired lock and hold it until something causes us to crash  > > (such as the witness code noticing that we???re returning to userland with  > > the lock still held). > ... > > I believe there???s also a small window where the KN_LIST_LOCK macro  > > checks kn->kn_knlist and finds it to be non-NULL, but by the time it  > > actually dereferences it, it has become NULL. This would produce the  > > ???page fault while in kernel mode??? crash. > >  > > If someone familiar with this code sees an obvious fix, I???ll be happy to  > > test it. Otherwise, I???d appreciate any advice on fixing this. My first  > > thought is that a ???struct knote??? ought to have its own mutex for  > > controlling access to the flag fields and ideally the ???kn_knlist??? field.  > > I.e., you would first acquire a knote???s lock and then the knlist lock,  > > thus ensuring that no one could clear the kn_knlist variable while you  > > hold the knlist lock. The knlist lock, however, usually comes from  > > whichever event producing entity the knote tracks, so getting lock  > > ordering right between the per-knote mutex and this other lock seems  > > potentially hard. (Sometimes we call into functions in kern_event.c with  > > the knlist lock already held, having been acquired in code outside of  > > kern_event.c. Consider, for example, calling KNOTE_LOCKED from  > > kern_exit.c; the PROC_LOCK macro has already been used to acquire the  > > process lock, also serving  
 > >          
 > >          
 > >  
 > >      
 > >      
 > >  
 >