On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > So I guess this bug has more to do with timing and little to do with > > state, contrary to my guesswork above. And no doubt I will have to > > What may still vary is physical mapping - I remember you had used some > tool before to parse proc/<pid>/pagemap to determine the physical > addresses for task stack areas? Or am I misremembering that from some > other bug? >
You're right, back in September 2021 when I was chasing a different bug we did discuss tools to look at physical mappings. I don't think that would help here though. We know the failure is not bad RAM because multiple Macs fail in the same way. Also, there's no DMA taking place on these particular machines. > > contradict myself again if/when it turns out that uninitialized memory > > is a factor :-/ > > I haven't found a config option to initialize memory returned by the > kernel page allocators, so not sure how to test that ... > I was able to find some command line options (init_on_alloc, init_on_free) and the related Kconfig symbols (CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON, CONFIG_INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON). Given the compiler supports -fzero-call-used-regs=used-gpr there's also CONFIG_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS. Also CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL_ZERO (-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero). The problem with these options is that they may produce a large effect on the timing of events but they should still have no effect on the behaviour of a correct userspace program. Since we are dealing with a suspect userspace program, what could we learn from such a test? E.g. if the crashing stopped one could simply attribute that to the timing change. I suppose, if the crashing became more frequent, perhaps that would help debug the userspace program. So maybe it's worth a try...
