Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:06:35 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Message-ID: <Zca-C0rND4V0ZWI6@paquier.xyz>
References: <ZcXeuOl9qy7YA9RH@paquier.xyz>
 <202402090848.j6evnpunbehe@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAExHW5ugP_fAXtZhyES4zW5OtYn8J5e=eDZbSCCVM2ekASQRSg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PSehf8HXfiFHmVeU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAExHW5ugP_fAXtZhyES4zW5OtYn8J5e=eDZbSCCVM2ekASQRSg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zca-C0rND4V0ZWI6%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--PSehf8HXfiFHmVeU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:27:26PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-i=
p.org> wrote:
>> Hmm, but the backtrace() manpage says
>>
>>        =E2=80=A2  backtrace() and backtrace_symbols_fd() don't call mall=
oc()  explic=E2=80=90
>>           itly,  but  they  are part of libgcc, which gets loaded dynami=
cally
>>           when first used.  Dynamic loading usually triggers a call  to =
 mal=E2=80=90
>>           loc(3).   If  you  need certain calls to these two functions t=
o not
>>           allocate memory (in signal handlers, for example), you need to=
 make
>>           sure libgcc is loaded beforehand.
>>
>> and the patch ensures that libgcc is loaded by calling a dummy
>> backtrace() at the start of the process.

FWIW, anything I am reading about the matter freaks me out, including
the dlopen() part in all the backends:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html

So I really question whether it is a good idea to assume if this will
always be safe depending on the version of libgcc dealt with,
increasing the impact area.  Perhaps that's worrying too much, but it
looks like one of these things where we'd better be really careful.

> We defer actual action triggered by a signal till CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
> is called. I understand that we can't do that here since we want to
> capture the backtrace at that moment and can't wait till next CFI. But
> printing the backend can surely wait till next CFI right?

Delaying the call of backtrace() to happen during a CFI() would be
safe, yes, and writing data to stderr would not really be an issue as
at least the data would be sent somewhere.  That's less useful, but
we do that for memory contexts.
--
Michael

--PSehf8HXfiFHmVeU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=f1I0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--PSehf8HXfiFHmVeU--