ruby-core@ruby-lang.org archive (unofficial mirror)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <noreply@ruby-lang.org>
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:109824] [Ruby master Bug#18991] False LocalJumpError when branch coverage is enabled
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 10:19:01 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.journal-99062.20220902101859.31364@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-18991.20220902032206.31364@ruby-lang.org

Issue #18991 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


Good catch, thank you for your report. I could recreate the issue without coverage.

```
RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile_option = false

eval("1&.tap { break }") #=> break from proc-closure (LocalJumpError)
```
Here is my analysis.
`throw TAG_BREAK` instruction makes a jump only if the continuation of catch of `TAG_BREAK`exactly matches the instruction immediately following the "send" instruction that is currently being executed. Otherwise, it seems to determine break from proc-closure.

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/0d2422cf63ff330e372613894995e762d122e6b7/vm_insnhelper.c#L1484

This is very fragile. In the case in question, some instructions for recoding branch coverage were inserted immediately after the "send" instruction, which made the condition above unmatch. Also, when the compiler optimization is disabled, a "jump" instruction seems to be inserted after "send" for some reason, resulting in the same error.

Here is a proof-of-concept, an extremely dirty patch to force to move the continuation of catch of TAG_BREAK immediately after "send" (or "invokesuper"):

```diff
diff --git a/compile.c b/compile.c
index e906bd1e10..6497a8d64e 100644
--- a/compile.c
+++ b/compile.c
@@ -7353,7 +7353,30 @@ compile_iter(rb_iseq_t *iseq, LINK_ANCHOR *const ret, const NODE *const node, in
                            ISEQ_TYPE_BLOCK, line);
         CHECK(COMPILE(ret, "iter caller", node->nd_iter));
     }
-    ADD_LABEL(ret, retry_end_l);
+
+    {
+        // We need to put the label "retry_end_l" immediately after the last "send" instruction.
+        // This because vm_throw checks if the break cont is equal to the index of next insn of the "send".
+        // (Otherwise, it is considered "break from proc-closure". See "TAG_BREAK" handling in "vm_throw_start".)
+        //
+        // Normally, "send" instruction is at the last.
+        // However, qcall under branch coverage measurement adds some instructions after the "send".
+        //
+        // Note that "invokesuper" appears instead of "send".
+        INSN *iobj;
+        LINK_ELEMENT *last_elem = LAST_ELEMENT(ret);
+        iobj = IS_INSN(last_elem) ? (INSN*) last_elem : (INSN*) get_prev_insn((INSN*) last_elem);
+        while (INSN_OF(iobj) != BIN(send) && INSN_OF(iobj) != BIN(invokesuper)) {
+            iobj = (INSN*) get_prev_insn(iobj);
+        }
+        ELEM_INSERT_NEXT(&iobj->link, (LINK_ELEMENT*) retry_end_l);
+
+        // LINK_ANCHOR has a pointer to the last element, but ELEM_INSERT_NEXT does not update it
+        // even if we add an insn to the last of LINK_ANCHOR. So this updates it manually.
+        if (&iobj->link == LAST_ELEMENT(ret)) {
+            ret->last = (LINK_ELEMENT*) retry_end_l;
+        }
+    }

     if (popped) {
         ADD_INSN(ret, line_node, pop);
```

I want to change the break handling itself, but I haven't come up with a good fix.

What do you think? @nobu @ko1

----------------------------------------
Bug #18991: False LocalJumpError when branch coverage is enabled
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18991#change-99062

* Author: qnighy (Masaki Hara)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 3.1.2p20 (2022-04-12 revision 4491bb740a) [arm64-darwin21]
* Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
Enabling branch coverage leads to a false LocalJumpError where it should not be raised.

```ruby
# test.rb
require "coverage"
Coverage.start(branches: true)
# Coverage.start(lines: true)

load "./test2.rb"
```

```ruby
# test2.rb
1&.tap do break end
```

Output:

```
$ ruby test.rb
/Users/qnighy/workdir/branch-coverage-bug/test2.rb:1:in `block in <top (required)>': break from proc-closure (LocalJumpError)
	from <internal:kernel>:90:in `tap'
	from /Users/qnighy/workdir/branch-coverage-bug/test2.rb:1:in `<top (required)>'
	from test.rb:5:in `load'
	from test.rb:5:in `<main>'
```



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-02 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-02  3:22 [ruby-core:109822] [Ruby master Bug#18991] False LocalJumpError when branch coverage is enabled qnighy (Masaki Hara)
2022-09-02 10:19 ` mame (Yusuke Endoh) [this message]
2022-11-08  2:59 ` [ruby-core:110649] " mame (Yusuke Endoh)
2023-10-26  0:22 ` [ruby-core:115173] " kjtsanaktsidis (KJ Tsanaktsidis) via ruby-core
2023-11-06 11:14 ` [ruby-core:115262] " usa (Usaku NAKAMURA) via ruby-core

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=redmine.journal-99062.20220902101859.31364@ruby-lang.org \
    --to=ruby-core@ruby-lang.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).