571578 - minidump_stackwalk for x86_64 doesn't scan the stack for return address, so it fails when symbols are incomplete

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Crash Reporting, defect)

Description

[Jesse Ruderman]

> Thread 2
>  0  libpthread-2.11.1.so + 0xb85c
>     rbx = 0x66f2a710   r12 = 0x00000001   r13 = 0x00000001   r14 = 0x00000000
>     r15 = 0x00000000   rip = 0x7966985c   rsp = 0x66f29cc8   rbp = 0x66f29d20
>
> Thread 3
>  0  libpthread-2.11.1.so + 0xbbc9
>     rbx = 0x66729710   r12 = 0x00000009   r13 = 0x66728cc0   r14 = 0x00000000
>     r15 = 0x00000000   rip = 0x79669bc9   rsp = 0x66728c28   rbp = 0x66728cf0

<ted> currently, the x86-64 stackwalker doesn't have any heuristics like the x86 one does, where it can scan the stack for return addresses
<ted> so it gives up and goes home
<ted> without symbols we can't walk the stack on x86-64, because we need the CFI to walk it, and there's no fallback

The result is that I never get useful stacks for non-main-threads, and often don't get useful stacks for even the main thread.

This doesn't block me personally because I can use 32-bit builds.

Comment 1

[Karl Tomlinson (:karlt back Feb 10)]

For x86_64, does it make sense to unwind on the client, given that it has access to the CFI?  AFAIK, it doesn't need symbols to get return addresses because the CFI is always(?) there.

Comment 2

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

That would involve completely rearchitecting how Breakpad works.

Comment 3

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Although we might be able to figure out some sort of clever hack where the client code uses the unwind data and inserts some extra metadata into the dump to give the stackwalker a hand.

Comment 4

[Jim Blandy :jimb]

Adding the scanning heuristic shouldn't be that hard.  If anyone wants to try it, find me on #breakpad and ask for help.

Comment 5

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

This is going to be more important since we're shipping 64-bit Linux and OS X binaries for Firefox 4. Any stack that starts out in an unknown module (like a system library) is going to stop there. Also, we don't have symbols for most Linux/OS X system libraries, so we'll see this a lot. For example, I'm testing OS X plugin hang reporting, and all my stacks look like:
http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-ec518ff9-396b-4089-a477-56e742100824

Comment 6

[chris hofmann]

seems like we need some solution on this for firefox4 or risk not understanding some increasing pct. of crash data.

Comment 7

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Needs an owner; blocking for the scanning heuristic.

Comment 9

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Patches are up for review:
http://breakpad.appspot.com/205001 (has r+ jimb already)
http://breakpad.appspot.com/206001

Should be able to get these landed upstream tomorrow, then get Socorro updated fairly soon after that.

Comment 10

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Landed upstream:
http://code.google.com/p/google-breakpad/source/detail?r=703
http://code.google.com/p/google-breakpad/source/detail?r=704

Going to file a Socorro update bug right now.

Comment 12

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Looks good:
http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-3bd4810d-79da-478e-99bc-9e5572101006
(click "Show/hide other threads" to see more useful stacks)

Comment 13

[Gordon P. Hemsley [:GPHemsley]]

(In reply to comment #12)
> Looks good:
> http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-3bd4810d-79da-478e-99bc-9e5572101006
> (click "Show/hide other threads" to see more useful stacks)

That crash (and, I see, this bug) is on Linux.

I had a crash today on Mac OS X, and it still doesn't have a stack trace:
http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-b0c7ac9d-83aa-42e4-aee6-2adb12101010

Perhaps bug 601312 isn't a duplicate of this after all?