Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 11:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 September 2015 at 11:25, Richard Purdie
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > We're seeing repeated segfaults in qemu-system-arm when we heavily use
> > the network. I have a coredump backtrace:
> 
> > (gdb) print s->tx_fifo_done
> > $1 = {99614720, 99614720, 99614720, 99614720}
> > (gdb) print s->tx_fifo_done_len
> > $2 = 99614719
> >
> > so it looks like tx_fifo_done_len has been corrupted, going beyond that
> > is harder for me to figure out. Does anyone happen to know what might be
> > going on here? This is with qemu 2.4.0.
> 
> That would suggest the rx_fifo buffer is overrunning (assuming
> none of the other fields in the struct look like they've
> been corrupted). Can you try putting
>     assert(s->rx_fifo_len < NUM_PACKETS);
>  before
>     s->rx_fifo[s->rx_fifo_len++] = packetnum;
> in smc91c111_receive(), and see if you hit that assertion?

(gdb) print s->tx_fifo_len
$2 = 0
(gdb) print s->rx_fifo_len
$3 = 10

So just based on that, yes, seems that the rx_fifo looks to be
overrunning. I can add the asserts but I think it would just confirm
this.

> Also, do you have a more specific reproduce case so I can try
> to replicate the problem here?

Not sure how familiar you are with the yocto project? Basically we build
a core-image-sato rootfs image, then boot it under qemu and run some
tests against it. This seems to reliably fail for arm, particularly on
our debian8 autobuilder for reasons as yet unknown. The build logs for a
couple of example failures are:

https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/main/builders/nightly-oecore/builds/477
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/main/builders/nightly-arm-lsb/builds/465

There is an issue where the tests don't stop running after qemu
segfaults, they continue to try and connect to it which is an issue
we'll work separately. The is a segfault/coredump showing the same
backtrace for both the above builds.

So if you had an OE build environment, you could download (or build) a
core-image-sato, then just run the tests against it (bitbake
core-image-sato -c testimage). We've yet to figure out exactly which
environments trigger it but it does seem to fail fairly regularly (>50%
of the time) when running these tests.

I appreciate its not exactly an easy reproducer but the setup is
designed to be replicated and you did ask! :)

Cheers,

Richard