Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cmd/compile: nonsensical DWARF location lists produced for function argument #61700

Open
andreimatei opened this issue Aug 1, 2023 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
compiler/runtime Issues related to the Go compiler and/or runtime. NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one.
Milestone

Comments

@andreimatei
Copy link
Contributor

andreimatei commented Aug 1, 2023

What version of Go are you using (go version)?

$ go version
go version go1.21rc3 linux/amd64

Does this issue reproduce with the latest release?

Yes.
It also reproduces with 1.20, and maybe older versions too.

What operating system and processor architecture are you using (go env)?

go env Output
$ go env
GO111MODULE=''
GOARCH='amd64'
GOBIN=''
GOCACHE='/home/andrei/.cache/go-build'
GOENV='/home/andrei/.config/go/env'
GOEXE=''
GOEXPERIMENT=''
GOFLAGS=''
GOHOSTARCH='amd64'
GOHOSTOS='linux'
GOINSECURE=''
GOMODCACHE='/home/andrei/go/pkg/mod'
GONOPROXY=''
GONOSUMDB=''
GOOS='linux'
GOPATH='/home/andrei/go'
GOPRIVATE=''
GOPROXY='https://proxy.golang.org,direct'
GOROOT='/home/andrei/sdk/go1.21rc3'
GOSUMDB='sum.golang.org'
GOTMPDIR=''
GOTOOLCHAIN='auto'
GOTOOLDIR='/home/andrei/sdk/go1.21rc3/pkg/tool/linux_amd64'
GOVCS=''
GOVERSION='go1.21rc3'
GCCGO='gccgo'
GOAMD64='v1'
AR='ar'
CC='gcc'
CXX='g++'
CGO_ENABLED='1'
GOMOD='/dev/null'
GOWORK=''
CGO_CFLAGS='-O2 -g'
CGO_CPPFLAGS=''
CGO_CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g'
CGO_FFLAGS='-O2 -g'
CGO_LDFLAGS='-O2 -g'
PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config'
GOGCCFLAGS='-fPIC -m64 -pthread -Wl,--no-gc-sections -fmessage-length=0 -ffile-prefix-map=/tmp/go-build1118470848=/tmp/go-build -gno-record-gcc-switches'

What did you do?

In the CockroachDB (optimized) binary, I very commonly see broken location lists that contain duplicate pieces - so, for example, a 128-bit interface is described as a 256-bit struct, where the two halves are repeated. Playing by hand with small repros, I could also produce a case where the pieces are not even repeated, making the debug information even more confusing / nonsensical - which leads me to believe that the bug is not simply a "mechanical" one. Here's an example that shows all these problems:
https://goplay.tools/snippet/UfS5J4cYGy5

Consider this function in the snippet:

28:func myfunc(ctx context.Context) {
29:	dummy()
30:	foo(ctx)
31:	if gx == 0 {
32:		ctx = makeCtx1()
33:		dummy()
34:	} else {
35:		ctx = makeCtx2()
36:	}
37:	foo(ctx)
38:}

The debug info for the ctx context.Context function argument is the following:

0x000021c9:     DW_TAG_formal_parameter
                  DW_AT_name    ("ctx")
                  DW_AT_variable_parameter      (0x00)
                  DW_AT_decl_line       (28)
                  DW_AT_type    (0x0000000000019374 "context.Context")
                  DW_AT_location        (0x000016ff: 
                     [0x0000000000463da0, 0x0000000000463dbd): DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg3 RBX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg3 RBX, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463dbd, 0x0000000000463de0): DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463de0, 0x0000000000463de5): DW_OP_fbreg -32, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463de5, 0x0000000000463dea): DW_OP_fbreg -32, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg -24, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463dea, 0x0000000000463df6): DW_OP_fbreg -32, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg -24, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463df6, 0x0000000000463e00): DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463e00, 0x0000000000463e05): DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg3 RBX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8
                     [0x0000000000463e05, 0x0000000000463e29): DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8)

Notice that all the location lists contain 4 8-byte pieces, whereas they should contain 2 8-byte pieces (context.Context is a 16-byte interface).
Some of these location lists contain duplicate information - e.g. the first one:

DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg3 RBX, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_reg3 RBX, DW_OP_piece 0x8

Notice that the RAX and RBX pieces are each repeated.

But then it gets even more funky. Notice, for example, the 3rd location list:

[0x0000000000463de0, 0x0000000000463de5): DW_OP_fbreg -32, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_fbreg +8, DW_OP_piece 0x8

Here, the first piece is no longer repeated.

FWIW, what happens around the 463de0 PC location is the following:

; /home/andrei/src/github.com/andreimatei/stackviz/test_progs/ctx.go:32
  463dd6: e8 45 ff ff ff               	callq	0x463d20 <main.makeCtx1>
; /home/andrei/src/github.com/andreimatei/stackviz/test_progs/ctx.go:37
  463ddb: 48 89 44 24 10               	movq	%rax, 0x10(%rsp)
  463de0: 48 89 5c 24 18               	movq	%rbx, 0x18(%rsp)
; /home/andrei/src/github.com/andreimatei/stackviz/test_progs/ctx.go:33
  463de5: e8 76 ff ff ff               	callq	0x463d60 <main.dummy>

At location 463ddb, the first word of the ctx variable is written to rsp + 16, which corresponds to FBREG - 32. So that explains the update to the first piece. But the 2nd piece (which should not have existed in the first place) is left un-updated.

What did you expect to see?

I expected the location lists for the ctx variable to add up to 128 bits, not 256.


If someone is kindly willing to give me some clues and point me in the right direction, I might be inclined to work on some fix.

cc @dr2chase @randall77 @thanm

@gopherbot gopherbot added the compiler/runtime Issues related to the Go compiler and/or runtime. label Aug 1, 2023
@mknyszek mknyszek added the NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one. label Aug 2, 2023
@mknyszek mknyszek added this to the Backlog milestone Aug 2, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
compiler/runtime Issues related to the Go compiler and/or runtime. NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one.
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants