Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 6/7] qdev: Protect device-list-properties against broken devices

[Markus Armbruster]

Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:

> On 28/09/15 10:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On 25/09/15 16:17, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/09/15 20:57, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>>> Several devices don't survive object_unref(object_new(T)): they crash
>>>>>> or hang during cleanup, or they leave dangling pointers behind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This breaks at least device-list-properties, because
>>>>>> qmp_device_list_properties() needs to create a device to find its
>>>>>> properties.  Broken in commit f4eb32b "qmp: show QOM properties in
>>>>>> device-list-properties", v2.1.  Example reproducer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     $ qemu-system-aarch64 -nodefaults -display none -machine none
>>>>>> -S -qmp stdio
>>>>>>     {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 4,
>>>>>> "major": 2}, "package": ""}, "capabilities": []}}
>>>>>>     { "execute": "qmp_capabilities" }
>>>>>>     {"return": {}}
>>>>>>     { "execute": "device-list-properties", "arguments": {
>>>>>> "typename": "pxa2xx-pcmcia" } }
>>>>>>     qemu-system-aarch64: /home/armbru/work/qemu/memory.c:1307:
>>>>>> memory_region_finalize: Assertion `((&mr->subregions)->tqh_first
>>>>>> == ((void *)0))' failed.
>>>>>>     Aborted (core dumped)
>>>>>>     [Exit 134 (SIGABRT)]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, I can't fix the problems in these devices right now.
>>>>>> Instead, add DeviceClass member cannot_even_create_with_object_new_yet
>>>>>> to mark them:
>>> ...
>>>>>>  static void pxa2xx_pcmcia_register_types(void)
>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_rng.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_rng.c
>>>>>> index ed43d5e..e1b115d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_rng.c
>>>>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_rng.c
>>>>>> @@ -169,6 +169,11 @@ static void spapr_rng_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, 
>>>>>> void *data)
>>>>>>      dc->realize = spapr_rng_realize;
>>>>>>      set_bit(DEVICE_CATEGORY_MISC, dc->categories);
>>>>>>      dc->props = spapr_rng_properties;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>> +     * Reason: crashes device-introspect-test for unknown reason.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>> +    dc->cannot_even_create_with_object_new_yet = true;
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't do that! That breaks the help output from
>>>>> "-device spapr-rng,?" which should help the user to see how to use this
>>>>> device!
>>>>
>>>> Well, device-introspection-test makes qemu crash, with the backtrace
>>>> pointing squarely to this device.  Stands to reason that device
>>>> introspection could crash in normal usage, too.  Until the crash is
>>>> debugged, we better disable introspection of this device.
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree that disabling introspection hurts users.  Just not as
>>>> much as crashes :)
>>>>
>>>>> I tried to debug why this device breaks the test, but the test
>>>>> environment is giving me a hard time ... how do you best hook a gdb into
>>>>> that framework, so you can trace such problems?
>>>>> Anyway, with some trial and error, I found out that it seems like the
>>>>>
>>>>>   object_resolve_path_type("", TYPE_SPAPR_RNG, NULL)
>>>>>
>>>>> in spapr_rng_instance_init() is causing the problems. Could it be that
>>>>> object_resolve_path_type is not working with the test environment?
>>>>
>>>> I tried to figure out why this device breaks under this test, but
>>>> couldn't, so I posted with the "for unknown reason" comment.
>>>
>>> I've debugged this now for a while (thanks for the tip with
>>> MALLOC_PERTURB, by the way!) and it seems to me that the problem is in
>>> the macio object than in spapr-rng - the latter is just the victim of
>>> some memory corruption caused by the first one: The
>>> object_resolve_path_type() crashes while trying to go through the macio
>>> object.
>>>
>>> So could you please add the "dc->cannot_even_create_with_object_new_yet
>>> = true;" to macio_class_init() instead? ... that seems to fix the crash
>>> for me, too, and is likely the better place.
>> 
>> Hmm.
>> 
>> For most of the devices my patch marks, we have a pretty good idea on
>> what's wrong with them.  spapr-rng is among the exceptions.  You believe
>> it's actually "the macio object".  Which one?  "macio" is abstract...
>> 
>> You report introspecting "spapr-rng" crashes "while trying to go through
>> the macio object".  I wonder how omitting introspection of macio objects
>> (that's what marking them does to this test) could affect the object
>> we're going through when we crash.
>
> I have to correct myself: It's not going through the macio object, the
> problem is actually the "macio[0]" property that is created during
> memory_region_init() with object_property_add_child() ... the property
> points to a free()d object when the crash happens.
>
>>> Or maybe we could get this also fixed? The problem could be the
>>> memory_region_init(&s->bar, NULL, "macio", 0x80000) in
>>> macio_instance_init() ... is this ok here? Or does this rather have to
>>> go to the realize() function instead?
>> 
>> Hmm, does creating and destroying a macio object leave the memory region
>> behind?
>> 
>> Paolo, is calling memory_region_init() in an instance_init() method
>> okay?
>
> As Paolo mentioned, we likely need to pass an "owner" to
> memory_region_init() or the macio memory region will get attached to
> "/unattached" instead - and then leave a dangling link property behind
> when the original macio object got destroyed.
>
> By the way, there are some more spots like this in the code, e.g. in
> pxa2xx_fir_instance_init() in hw/arm/pxa2xx.c ...

That's a memory_region_init_io(), so I should search for that pattern,
too.  Any memory_region_init*() in fact, I guess.  >300 hits :(