[PAL] Do not describe RIP location on syscall instruction

[adarshan-intel]

Description of the Changes

PR #1991 exposes a segmentation fault with the use of pal_describe_location as in below error log:

(host_exception.c:141:handle_sync_signal) error: Unexpected segmentation fault (SIGSEGV) occurred inside untrusted PAL (libc-2.31.so+0x22941 (addr = 0x7f62e5f98941))

Using the above addresses we could find the functions abort->hlt from objdump of libc.

We tried to debug the issue using GDB to figure out the cause of abort call inside libc but issue did not reproduced with GDB even after multiple tries.

Issue is consistent with Pytorch workload using curated apps (with debug build) without GDB, on a Azure VM, rarely on our lab servers.

Also tested by increasing the ENCLAVE_SIG_STACK_SIZE and ALT_STACK_SIZE size to 256KB but that also did not help.

Likely some race in Gramine when using pal_describe_location which we are not hitting with GDB as GDB makes the execution slow.

We want to remove this function call in coming release and analyze this issue after the release.

Fixes gramineproject/contrib#87

---

This change is 

[dimakuv]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, all discussions resolved, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel)

[dimakuv]

Jenkins, test this please

[mkow]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel) (waiting on @adarshan-intel)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:
No need to list all the PALs as the change is in all PALs we have.

Suggestion:

[PAL] Do not try to describe RIP location on syscall instruction

---

-- commits line 15 at r1:
What do you mean by "control path"?

Code quote:

control path

---

-- commits line 18 at r1:

As the true root cause for this bug is not yet found, this commit introduces a workaround

As I said in the previous PR (#2015) I'm not ok with doing random changes without understanding what's causing the memory corruption.

[dimakuv]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel) (waiting on @adarshan-intel and @mkow)

---

-- commits line 15 at r1:

Previously, mkow (Michał Kowalczyk) wrote…

What do you mean by "control path"?

I proposed this "control path" wording. I simply meant that the function pal_describe_location() calls other functions, and by inspecting all these called functions, it looked fine to me (no data races).

---

-- commits line 18 at r1:

Previously, mkow (Michał Kowalczyk) wrote…

As the true root cause for this bug is not yet found, this commit introduces a workaround

As I said in the previous PR (#2015) I'm not ok with doing random changes without understanding what's causing the memory corruption.

Well, true... Someone needs to debug it.

[mkow]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel) (waiting on @adarshan-intel and @dimakuv)

---

-- commits line 15 at r1:

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

I proposed this "control path" wording. I simply meant that the function pal_describe_location() calls other functions, and by inspecting all these called functions, it looked fine to me (no data races).

ah, you mean "control-flow path"? or something else?

[dimakuv]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel) (waiting on @adarshan-intel and @mkow)

---

-- commits line 15 at r1:

Previously, mkow (Michał Kowalczyk) wrote…

ah, you mean "control-flow path"? or something else?

Yes, true, I meant "control flow path"

[adarshan-intel]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (1 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (1 more required, approved so far: Intel) (waiting on @mkow)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, mkow (Michał Kowalczyk) wrote…

No need to list all the PALs as the change is in all PALs we have.

Done.

---

-- commits line 15 at r1:

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

Yes, true, I meant "control flow path"

Done.

[dimakuv]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions, not enough approvals from maintainers (2 more required), not enough approvals from different teams (2 more required, approved so far: ) (waiting on @mkow)

---

-- commits line 18 at r1:

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

Well, true... Someone needs to debug it.

@mkow Will you post here the details of your debugging session, and the conclusion (most probably, to revert #1991 until a proper fix is done)?