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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Data structure versioning #9

Closed
shefty opened this issue Sep 3, 2014 · 2 comments
Closed

Data structure versioning #9

shefty opened this issue Sep 3, 2014 · 2 comments
Assignees
@shefty
Labels
enhancement
Milestone
alpha release

Comments

@shefty
Copy link
Member

shefty commented Sep 3, 2014

From the OFIWG F2F, data structure versions will be indicated using a version parameter to fi_getinfo. The version parameter will indicate the version of the set of data structures known to the application. libfabric will adjust its behavior accordingly, based on the data structures and fields known to the app. This mechanism will replace the field/mask concept in the current data structure scheme.
@shefty shefty added this to the alpha release milestone Sep 3, 2014
@shefty shefty self-assigned this Sep 6, 2014
@shefty
Copy link
Member Author

shefty commented Sep 7, 2014

Masks removed in commit 97d27be

@shefty shefty closed this as completed Sep 7, 2014
@shefty shefty reopened this Sep 7, 2014
@shefty
Copy link
Member Author

shefty commented Sep 7, 2014

fi_getinfo version addressed in commit 8434108

@shefty shefty closed this as completed Sep 7, 2014
@shefty shefty mentioned this issue Nov 5, 2014
Closed
@shefty shefty mentioned this issue Feb 26, 2015
Closed
@shefty shefty mentioned this issue Mar 6, 2015
Closed
@shefty shefty mentioned this issue Sep 26, 2015
Closed
@tenbrugg tenbrugg mentioned this issue Jun 27, 2016
Closed
This was referenced Sep 29, 2017
Closed
Closed
@frostedcmos frostedcmos mentioned this issue Dec 4, 2019
Closed
@krehm krehm mentioned this issue Jan 28, 2020
Closed
@frostedcmos frostedcmos mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2020
Closed
@frostedcmos frostedcmos mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2020
Closed
@bsbernd bsbernd mentioned this issue Apr 30, 2020
Closed
@swelch swelch mentioned this issue Aug 28, 2020
Merged
Honggang-LI added a commit to Honggang-LI/libfabric that referenced this issue Dec 17, 2020
@Honggang-LI
src/common.c: fix a stack-buffer-overflow issue
5343004 
ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 at pc 0x14f2cb7ae0b9 bp 0x7fff4c61e650 sp 0x7fff4c61ddd8
WRITE of size 17 at 0x7fff4c61e7e0 thread T0
    #0 0x14f2cb7ae0b8  (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
    ofiwg#1 0x14f2cb7aedd2 in vsscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4dd2)
    ofiwg#2 0x14f2cb7aeede in __interceptor_sscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4ede)
    ofiwg#3 0x14f2cb230766 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:401
    ofiwg#4 0x14f2cb233238 in ofi_str_toaddr src/common.c:780
    ofiwg#5 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_handle_ib_ud_addr prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1670
    ofiwg#6 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_get_match_infos prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1787
    ofiwg#7 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_getinfo prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1841
    ofiwg#8 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
    ofiwg#9 0x14f2cb25fcc0 in ofi_get_core_info prov/util/src/util_attr.c:298
    ofiwg#10 0x14f2cb269b20 in ofix_getinfo prov/util/src/util_attr.c:321
    ofiwg#11 0x14f2cb3e29fd in rxd_getinfo prov/rxd/src/rxd_init.c:122
    ofiwg#12 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
    ofiwg#13 0x407150 in ft_getinfo common/shared.c:794
    ofiwg#14 0x414917 in ft_init_fabric common/shared.c:1042
    ofiwg#15 0x402f40 in run functional/bw.c:155
    ofiwg#16 0x402f40 in main functional/bw.c:252
    ofiwg#17 0x14f2ca1b28e2 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x238e2)
    ofiwg#18 0x401d1d in _start (/root/libfabric/fabtests/functional/fi_bw+0x401d1d)

Address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 48 in frame
    #0 0x14f2cb2306f3 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:397

  This frame has 1 object(s):
    [32, 48) 'fmt' <== Memory access at offset 48 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack unwind mechanism or swapcontext
      (longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
  0x1000698bbca0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcb0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcc0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcd0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbce0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x1000698bbcf0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00[f2]f2 f3 f3
  0x1000698bbd00: f3 f3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1
  0x1000698bbd10: f1 f1 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
  0x1000698bbd20: f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
  0x1000698bbd30: f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00
  0x1000698bbd40: 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
  Addressable:           00
  Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
  Heap left redzone:       fa
  Freed heap region:       fd
  Stack left redzone:      f1
  Stack mid redzone:       f2
  Stack right redzone:     f3
  Stack after return:      f5
  Stack use after scope:   f8
  Global redzone:          f9
  Global init order:       f6
  Poisoned by user:        f7
  Container overflow:      fc
  Array cookie:            ac
  Intra object redzone:    bb
  ASan internal:           fe
  Left alloca redzone:     ca
  Right alloca redzone:    cb

Fixes: 5d31276 ("common: Redo address string conversions")
Signed-off-by: Honggang Li <honli@redhat.com>
@Honggang-LI Honggang-LI mentioned this issue Dec 17, 2020
Merged
@shefty shefty mentioned this issue Dec 18, 2020
Merged
shefty pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2020
@Honggang-LI @shefty
src/common.c: fix a stack-buffer-overflow issue
8c2f159 
ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 at pc 0x14f2cb7ae0b9 bp 0x7fff4c61e650 sp 0x7fff4c61ddd8
WRITE of size 17 at 0x7fff4c61e7e0 thread T0
    #0 0x14f2cb7ae0b8  (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
    #1 0x14f2cb7aedd2 in vsscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4dd2)
    #2 0x14f2cb7aeede in __interceptor_sscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4ede)
    #3 0x14f2cb230766 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:401
    #4 0x14f2cb233238 in ofi_str_toaddr src/common.c:780
    #5 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_handle_ib_ud_addr prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1670
    #6 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_get_match_infos prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1787
    #7 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_getinfo prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1841
    #8 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
    #9 0x14f2cb25fcc0 in ofi_get_core_info prov/util/src/util_attr.c:298
    #10 0x14f2cb269b20 in ofix_getinfo prov/util/src/util_attr.c:321
    #11 0x14f2cb3e29fd in rxd_getinfo prov/rxd/src/rxd_init.c:122
    #12 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
    #13 0x407150 in ft_getinfo common/shared.c:794
    #14 0x414917 in ft_init_fabric common/shared.c:1042
    #15 0x402f40 in run functional/bw.c:155
    #16 0x402f40 in main functional/bw.c:252
    #17 0x14f2ca1b28e2 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x238e2)
    #18 0x401d1d in _start (/root/libfabric/fabtests/functional/fi_bw+0x401d1d)

Address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 48 in frame
    #0 0x14f2cb2306f3 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:397

  This frame has 1 object(s):
    [32, 48) 'fmt' <== Memory access at offset 48 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack unwind mechanism or swapcontext
      (longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
  0x1000698bbca0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcb0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcc0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbcd0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
  0x1000698bbce0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x1000698bbcf0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00[f2]f2 f3 f3
  0x1000698bbd00: f3 f3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1
  0x1000698bbd10: f1 f1 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
  0x1000698bbd20: f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
  0x1000698bbd30: f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00
  0x1000698bbd40: 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
  Addressable:           00
  Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
  Heap left redzone:       fa
  Freed heap region:       fd
  Stack left redzone:      f1
  Stack mid redzone:       f2
  Stack right redzone:     f3
  Stack after return:      f5
  Stack use after scope:   f8
  Global redzone:          f9
  Global init order:       f6
  Poisoned by user:        f7
  Container overflow:      fc
  Array cookie:            ac
  Intra object redzone:    bb
  ASan internal:           fe
  Left alloca redzone:     ca
  Right alloca redzone:    cb

Fixes: 5d31276 ("common: Redo address string conversions")
Signed-off-by: Honggang Li <honli@redhat.com>
@frostedcmos frostedcmos mentioned this issue Mar 30, 2021
Closed
@frostedcmos frostedcmos mentioned this issue Aug 5, 2021
Closed
This was referenced Dec 8, 2021
Closed
Closed
@chien-intel chien-intel mentioned this issue Jun 6, 2022
Closed
@bfaccini bfaccini mentioned this issue Jul 11, 2022
Closed
@aingerson aingerson mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2022
Closed
@aingerson aingerson mentioned this issue Dec 5, 2022
Closed
ooststep pushed a commit to ooststep/libfabric that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2023
@shefty
prov/net: Set counter inc callback for saved receives
d311cf1 
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to
increment the rx counter.  Set the rx counter increment callback
to match that of the posted receive.  This fixes an assert in
xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer.

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#0  0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4  0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347
#5  0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354
#6  0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153
ofiwg#7  0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188
ofiwg#8  0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445
ofiwg#9  0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558
ofiwg#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91
ofiwg#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212

Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
ooststep pushed a commit to ooststep/libfabric that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2023
@shefty
prov/net: Set counter inc callback for saved receives
c1b2499 
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to
increment the rx counter.  Set the rx counter increment callback
to match that of the posted receive.  This fixes an assert in
xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer.

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#0  0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4  0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347
#5  0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354
#6  0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153
ofiwg#7  0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188
ofiwg#8  0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445
ofiwg#9  0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558
ofiwg#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91
ofiwg#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212

Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
shefty added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2023
@shefty
prov/net: Set counter inc callback for saved receives
d6dc25e 
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to
increment the rx counter.  Set the rx counter increment callback
to match that of the posted receive.  This fixes an assert in
xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer.

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#0  0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4  0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347
#5  0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354
#6  0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153
#7  0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188
#8  0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445
#9  0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558
#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91
#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212

Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
@finjulhich finjulhich mentioned this issue May 13, 2023
Closed
@Juee14Desai Juee14Desai mentioned this issue Sep 15, 2023
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@shefty shefty

Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
alpha release
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@shefty