Bug 439668 - ptrace+utrace: step-to-breakpoint: Watchpoint breaks PTRACE_SINGLESTEP
Summary: ptrace+utrace: step-to-breakpoint: Watchpoint breaks PTRACE_SINGLESTEP
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: kernel
Version: 13
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Roland McGrath
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-03-30 07:30 UTC by Jan Kratochvil
Modified: 2011-06-27 13:57 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-06-27 13:57:46 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jan Kratochvil 2008-03-30 07:30:16 UTC
Description of problem:
After one sets+clears an unhit watchpoint later processes being debugged on the
same CPU will skip two instructions with a single PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
kernel-2.6.23.1-42.fc8.x86_64
kernel-2.6.24.3-50.fc8.x86_64
kernel-2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9.x86_64 (Rawhide)
kernel-vanilla-2.6.25-0.101.rc4.git3.fc8.x86_64 (AFAIK NON-utrace!)

How reproducible:
Always.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. wget -O step-to-breakpoint.c
'http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/tests/ptrace-tests/tests/step-to-breakpoint.c?cvsroot=systemtap';
gcc -o step-to-breakpoint step-to-breakpoint.c -Wall -ggdb2 -D_GNU_SOURCE;
./step-to-breakpoint; echo $?

Actual results:
1

Expected results:
0

Additional info:
It also breaks various GDB testcase: gdb.base/call-sc.exp
Tested on:
  Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz 
  model           : 3
  stepping        : 4
  Dual CPU dual core (cpus=4)

Comment 3 Jan Kratochvil 2008-03-30 14:04:37 UTC
Problem is unreproducible on F-8:
  kernel-2.6.23.1-42.fc8.x86_64
  kernel-2.6.24.3-50.fc8.x86_64
on:
        Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 275
        cpu family      : 15
        model           : 33
        stepping        : 2

Therefore also due to the problem specifics expecting it is an Intel CPU errata
but I did not find it listed at:
  http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/specupdt/309222.htm
  February 2008 Revision 016


Comment 4 Roland McGrath 2008-03-31 02:54:11 UTC
The test case passes for me on my machines:

cpu family      : 6
model           : 15
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU            5120  @ 1.86GHz
stepping        : 6

I tried 2.6.24.3-34.fc8 and upstreamish bleeding edge hacking kernel.

Comment 5 Jan Kratochvil 2008-03-31 18:18:42 UTC
Verified as reproducibile on dell-pe2850-01.rhts.boston.redhat.com (still the
same host but the problem is really common in the RHTS farm) after loading
microcode-20080220.dat as found in microcode_ctl-1.17-1.44.fc9 being loaded on
F-8 kernel-2.6.23.1-42.fc8.x86_64 using F-8 microcode_ctl-1.17-1.38.fc8.x86_64.


Comment 6 Geoff Gustafson 2008-04-02 15:06:55 UTC
I will try to get Intel to evaluate this.

Comment 7 Jan Kratochvil 2008-04-04 16:44:35 UTC
The problem is most probably listed as N37 in the Intel Errata suggested by
Geoff G.:
  http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/specupdt/249199.htm
so it affects Intel processors having in /proc/cpuinfo:
  cpu family : 15

Unfortunately from the N37 description I do not see a simple kernel workaround
for it, fortunately the problem is no longer present on the recent Intel CPUs.

Still this is not a response from Intel, just my preliminary expectation.


Comment 8 Geoff Gustafson 2008-04-04 19:06:15 UTC
I just had various people on #devel run it, and here was one box that returned 1
from the test:

RHEL4.? running 2.6.9-68.26.EL.nmiwatchdog

cpu family      : 15
model           : 104
model name      : AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-58
stepping        : 2

It's a laptop, aris is testing on it and says it's benl's. So that would seem to
argue against CPU erratum...

Comment 9 Roland McGrath 2008-04-04 20:20:27 UTC
The erratum N37 description mentions several specific cases with many details,
and those cases are definitely not coming up in this test case.

Comment 10 Jan Kratochvil 2008-04-04 21:06:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> It's a laptop, aris is testing on it and says it's benl's. So that would seem
> to argue against CPU erratum...

Tried it there (on AMD) repeatedly and the problem is really reproducible there.


Comment 11 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 10:18:54 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 8 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 8.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '8'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 8's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 8 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 12 Bug Zapper 2009-01-09 06:17:24 UTC
Fedora 8 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-01-07. Fedora 8 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 13 Jan Kratochvil 2009-03-18 21:56:32 UTC
Verified on: kernel-2.6.29-0.207.rc7.ptrace.fc11.x86_64
"ptrace" - just removed:
ApplyPatch linux-2.6-utrace.patch

Comment 15 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 09:30:42 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 16 Bug Zapper 2010-04-27 11:58:27 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 11.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '11'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 17 Jan Kratochvil 2010-04-27 19:09:13 UTC
Bug has been verified by CAI Qian as existing in RHEL-6 Beta 1.

Comment 18 Bug Zapper 2011-06-02 18:33:50 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 13.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '13'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 19 Bug Zapper 2011-06-27 13:57:46 UTC
Fedora 13 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2011-06-25. Fedora 13 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.