Check out the new USENIX Web site.

Home About USENIX Events Membership Publications Students
USENIX '05 Paper    [USENIX '05 Technical Program]

next_inactive up previous

Debugging operating systems with time-traveling virtual machines

Samuel T. King, George W. Dunlap, and Peter M. Chen
University of Michigan


Operating systems are difficult to debug with traditional cyclic debugging. They are non-deterministic; they run for long periods of time; they interact directly with hardware devices; and their state is easily perturbed by the act of debugging. This paper describes a time-traveling virtual machine that overcomes many of the difficulties associated with debugging operating systems. Time travel enables a programmer to navigate backward and forward arbitrarily through the execution history of a particular run and to replay arbitrary segments of the past execution. We integrate time travel into a general-purpose debugger to enable a programmer to debug an OS in reverse, implementing commands such as reverse breakpoint, reverse watchpoint, and reverse single step. The space and time overheads needed to support time travel are reasonable for debugging, and movements in time are fast enough to support interactive debugging. We demonstrate the value of our time-traveling virtual machine by using it to understand and fix several OS bugs that are difficult to find with standard debugging tools. Reverse debugging is especially helpful in finding bugs that are fragile due to non-determinism, bugs in device drivers, bugs that require long runs to trigger, bugs that corrupt the stack, and bugs that are detected after the relevant stack frame is popped.

1 Introduction

Computer programmers are all-too-familiar with the task of debugging complex software through a combination of detective work, guesswork, and systematic search. Tracking down a bug generally starts with running a program until an error in the program manifests as a fault. The programmer1then seeks to start from the fault (the manifestation of the error) and work backward to the cause of the fault (the programming error itself). Cyclic debugging is the classic way to work backward toward the error. In cyclic debugging, a programmer uses a debugger or output statements to examine the state of the program at a given point in its execution. Armed with this information, the programmer then re-runs the program, stops it at an earlier point in its execution history, examines the state at this point, then iterates.

Unfortunately, this classic approach to debugging is difficult to apply when debugging operating systems. Many aspects of operating systems make them difficult to debug: they are non-deterministic; they run for long periods of time; the act of debugging may perturb their state; and they interact directly with hardware devices.

First, operating systems are non-deterministic. Their execution is affected by non-deterministic events such as the interleaving of multiple threads, interrupts, user input, network input, and the perturbations of state caused by the programmer who is debugging the system. This non-determinism makes cyclic debugging infeasible because the programmer cannot re-run the system to examine the state at an earlier point.

Second, operating systems run for long periods of time, such as weeks, months, or even years. Re-running the system in cyclic debugging would thus be infeasible even if the OS were completely deterministic.

Third, the act of debugging may perturb the state of the operating system. The converse is also true: a misbehaving operating system may corrupt the state of the debugger. These interactions are possible because the operating system is traditionally the lowest level of software on a computer, so the debugger's code and data is not isolated from the OS (unless the debugger uses specialized hardware such as an in-circuit emulator). Even remote kernel debuggers depend on some basic functionality in the debugged OS, such as reading and writing memory locations, setting and handling breakpoints, and communicating with the remote debugger (e.g., through the serial line). Using this basic functionality may be impossible on a sick OS. A debugger also needs assistance from the OS to access hardware devices, and this functionality may not work on a sick OS.

Finally, operating systems interact directly with hardware devices. Devices are sources of non-determinism that hinder cyclic debugging; they return data and generate interrupts that may change between runs. Devices may also fail due to timing dependencies if a programmer pauses during a debugging session.

In this paper, we describe how to use time-traveling virtual machines to overcome many of the difficulties associated with debugging operating systems. By virtual machine, we mean a software-implemented abstraction of a physical machine that is at a low-enough level to run an operating system. Running the OS inside a virtual machine enables the programmer to stand outside the OS being debugged. From this vantage point, the programmer can use a debugger to examine and control the execution of the OS without perturbing its state.

By time travel, we mean the ability to navigate backward and forward arbitrarily through the execution history of a particular run and to replay arbitrary segments of the past execution. For example, if the system crashed due to an errant pointer variable, time travel would allow the programmer to go back to the point when that pointer variable was corrupted; it would also allow the programmer to fast-forward again to the crash point. Time-traveling virtual machines allow a programmer to replay a prior point in the execution exactly as it was executed the first time. The past is immutable in our model of time travel; this ensures that there is only a single execution history, rather than a branching set of execution histories. As with cyclic debugging, the goal of time travel is to enable the programmer to examine the state of the OS at prior points in the execution. However, unlike cyclic debugging, time travel works in the presence of non-determinism. Time travel is also more convenient than classic cyclic debugging because it does not require the entire run to be repeated.

In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a time-traveling virtual machine (TTVM) for debugging operating systems. We integrate time travel into a general-purpose debugger (gdb) for our virtual machine, implementing commands such as reverse step (go back to the last instruction that was executed), reverse breakpoint (go back to the last time an instruction was executed), and reverse watchpoint (go back to the last time a variable was modified).

The space and time overhead needed to support time travel is reasonable for debugging. For three workloads that exercise the OS intensively, the logging needed to support time travel adds 3-12% time overhead and 2-85 KB/sec space overhead. The speed at which one can move backward and forward in the execution history depends on the frequency of checkpoints in the time region of interest. TTVM is able to insert additional checkpoints to speed up these movements or delete existing checkpoints to reduce space overhead. After adding checkpoints to a region of interest, TTVM allows a programmer to move to an arbitrary point within the region in about 12 seconds.

The following real-life example clarifies what we mean by debugging with time-traveling virtual machines and illustrates the value of debugging in this manner. The error we were attempting to debug was triggered when the guest kernel attempted to call a NULL function pointer. The error had corrupted the stack, so standard debugging tools were unable to traverse the call stack and determine where the invalid function call had originated. Using the TTVM reverse single step command, we were able easily to step back to where the function invocation was attempted and examine the state of the virtual machine at that point.

The contributions of this paper are as follows. TTVM is the first system that provides practical reverse debugging for long-running, multi-threaded programs such as an operating system. We show how to provide this capability at reasonable time and space overhead through techniques such as virtual-machine replay, checkpointing, logging disks, and running native device drivers inside a virtual machine. We also show how to integrate time travel in a debugger to enable new reverse debugging commands. We illustrate the usefulness of reverse debugging for operating systems through anecdotal experience and generalize about the types of situations in which reverse debugging is particularly helpful.

2 Virtual machines

A virtual machine is a software abstraction of a physical machine [12]. The software layer that provides this abstraction is called a virtual machine monitor (VMM). An operating system can be installed and run on a virtual machine as if it were running on a physical machine. Such an OS is called a ``guest'' OS to distinguish it from an OS that may be integrated into the VMM itself (which is called the ``host'' OS).

Several features of virtual machines make them attractive for our purposes. First, because the VMM adds a layer of software below the guest OS, it provides a protected substrate in which one can add new features. Unlike traditional kernel debugging, these new features will continue to work regardless of how sick the guest OS becomes; the guest OS cannot corrupt or interfere with the debugging functionality. We use this substrate to add traditional debugging capabilities such as setting breakpoints and reading and writing memory locations. We also add non-traditional debugging features such as logging and replaying non-deterministic inputs and saving and restoring the state of the virtual machine.

Second, a VMM allows us to run a general-purpose, full-featured debugger on the same physical machine as the OS being debugged without perturbing the debugged OS. Compared to traditional kernel debuggers, virtual machines enable more powerful debugging capabilities (e.g., one can read the virtual disk) with no perturbation of or dependency on the OS being debugged. It is also more convenient to use than a remote debugger because it does not require a second physical machine.

Finally, a VMM offers a narrow and well-defined interface: the interface of a physical machine. This interface makes it easier to implement the checkpointing and replay features we add in this paper, especially compared to the relatively wide and complex interface offered by an operating system to its application processes. The state of a virtual machine is easily identified as the virtual machine's memory, disk, and registers and can thus be saved and restored easily. Replay is easier to implement in a VMM than an operating system because the VMM exports an abstraction of a uniprocessor virtual machine (assuming a uniprocessor physical machine), whereas an OS exports an abstraction of a virtual multiprocessor to its application processes.

Figure 1: System structure: UML runs as two user processes on the host Linux OS, the guest-kernel host process and the guest-user host process. TTVM's ability to travel forward and back in time is implemented by modifying the host OS. We extend gdb to make use of this time traveling functionality. gdb communicates with the guest-kernel host process via a remote serial protocol.
\begin{figure}\centering\epsfig{file=uml.eps, width=3in}\hrulefill\end{figure}

The VMM used in this paper is User-Mode Linux (UML) [8], modified to support host device drivers in the guest OS. UML is implemented as a kernel modification to a host Linux OS (Figure 1)2. The virtual machine runs as two user processes on the host OS: one host process (the guest-kernel host process) runs all guest kernel code, and one host process (the guest-user host process) runs all guest user code. The guest-kernel host process uses the Linux ptrace facility to intercept system calls and signals generated by the guest-user host process. The guest-user host process uses UML's skas-extension to the host Linux kernel to switch quickly between address spaces of different guest user processes.

UML's VMM exports a para-virtualized architecture that is similar but not identical to the host hardware [28]. The guest OS in UML, which is also Linux, must be ported to run on top of this virtual architecture. Each piece of virtual hardware in UML is emulated with a host service. The guest disk is emulated by a raw disk partition on the host; the guest memory is emulated by a memory-mapped file on the host; the guest network card is emulated by a host TUN/TAP virtual Ethernet driver; the guest MMU is emulated by calls to the host mmap and mprotect system calls; guest timer and device interrupts are emulated by host SIGALRM and SIGIO signals; the guest console is emulated by standard output. The guest Linux's architecture-dependent layer uses these host services to interact with the virtual hardware.

Using a para-virtualized VMM [28] such as UML raises the issue of fidelity: is the guest OS similar enough to an OS that runs on the hardware (i.e., a host OS) that one can track down a bug in a host OS by debugging the guest OS? The answer depends on the specific VMM: as the para-virtualized architecture diverges from the hardware architecture, a guest OS that runs on the para-virtualized architecture diverges from the host OS, and it becomes less likely that a bug in the host OS can be debugged in the guest OS. Timing-dependent bugs may also manifest differently when running an OS on a virtual machine than when running on hardware.

UML's VMM is similar enough to the hardware interface that most code is identical between a host OS and a guest OS. The differences between the host OS and guest OS are isolated to the architecture-specific code, and almost all these differences are in device drivers. Not including device driver code, 92% of the code (measured in lines of .c and .S files) are identical between the guest and host OS. Because many OS bugs are in device drivers [7], we added the capability to UML to use unmodified real device drivers in the guest OS to drive devices on the host platform (Section 3.2)[17,11]. This makes it possible to debug problems in real device drivers with our system, and we have used our system to find, fix, and submit a patch for a bug in the host OS's USB serial driver. With our extension to UML, 98% of the host OS code base (including device drivers) can be debugged in the guest OS. Applying the techniques in this paper to a non para-virtualized VMM such as VMware would enable reverse debugging to work for any host OS bug.

Running an OS inside a virtual machine incurs overhead. We measured UML's virtualization overhead as 0% for the POV-ray ray tracer (a compute-intensive workload), 76% for a build of the Linux kernel (a system-call intensive workload which is expensive to virtualize [15]), and 15% for SPECweb99 (a web-server workload). This overhead is acceptable for debugging (in fact, UML is used in production web hosting environments). If lower overhead is needed, the ideas in this paper can be applied to faster virtual machines such as Xen [3] (3% overhead for a Linux kernel build), UMLinux/FAUmachine [15] (35% overhead for a Linux kernel build), or a hardware-supported virtual machine such as Intel's upcoming Vanderpool Technology.

3 Time-traveling virtual machines

A time-traveling virtual machine should have two capabilities. First, it should be able to reconstruct the complete state of the virtual machine at any point in a run, where a run is defined as the time from when the virtual machine was powered on to the last instruction it executed. Second, it should be able to start from any point in a run and from that point replay the same instruction stream that was executed during the original run from that point. This section describes how TTVM achieves these capabilities through a combination of logging, replay, and checkpointing.

3.1 Logging and replaying a VM

The foundational capability in TTVM is the ability to replay a run from a given point in a way that matches the original run instruction for instruction. Replay causes the virtual machine to transition through the same states as it went through during the original run; hence replay enables one to reconstruct the complete state of the virtual machine at any point in the run. TTVM uses the ReVirt logging/replay system to provide this capability [9]. This section briefly summarizes how ReVirt logs and replays the execution of a virtual machine.

A virtual machine can be replayed by starting from a checkpoint, then replaying all sources of non-determinism [5,9]. For UML, the sources of non-determinism are external input from the network, keyboard, and real-time clock and the timing of virtual interrupts. The VMM replays network and keyboard input by logging the calls that read these devices during the original run and regenerating the same data during the replay run. Likewise, we configure the CPU to cause reads of the real-time clock to trap to the VMM, where they can be logged or regenerated.

To replay a virtual interrupt, ReVirt logs the instruction in the run at which it was delivered and re-delivers the interrupt at this instruction during replay. This point is identified uniquely by the number of branches since the start of the run and the address of the interrupted instruction [19]. ReVirt uses a performance counter on the Intel Pentium 4 CPU to count the number of branches during logging, and it uses the same performance counter and instruction breakpoints to stop at the interrupted instruction during replay. Replaying interrupts enables ReVirt to replay the scheduling order of multi-threaded guest operating systems and applications, as long as the VMM exports the abstraction of a uniprocessor virtual machine [22]. Researchers are investigating ways to support replay on multiprocessors [29].

3.2 Host device drivers in the guest OS

In general, VMMs export a limited set of virtual devices. Some VMMs export virtual devices that exist in hardware (e.g., VMware Workstation exports an emulated AMD Lance Ethernet card); others (like UML) export virtual devices that have no hardware equivalent. Exporting a limited set of virtual devices to the guest OS is usually considered a benefit of virtual-machine systems, because it frees guest OSs from needing device drivers for myriad host devices [26]. However, when using virtual machines to debug operating systems, the limited set of virtual devices prevents programmers from using and debugging drivers for real devices; programmers can only debug the architecture-independent portion of the guest OS. There are two ways to address this limitation and enable the programmer to run and debug real device drivers in a guest OS. With both strategies, real device drivers can be included in the guest OS without being modified or re-compiled.

The first way to run a real device driver in the guest OS is for the VMM to provide a software emulator for that device. The device driver issues the normal set of I/O instructions: IN/OUT instructions, memory-mapped I/O, DMA commands, and interrupts. The VMM traps these privileged instructions and forwards them to/from the software device emulator. With this strategy, ReVirt can log and replay device driver code in the same way it logs and replays the rest of the guest OS. If one runs the VMM's software device emulator above ReVirt's logging system (and above the checkpoint system described in Section 3.3), ReVirt will guide the emulator and device driver code through the same instruction sequence during replay as they executed during logging. While this first strategy fits in well with the existing ReVirt system, it only works if one has an accurate software emulator for the device whose driver one wishes to debug.

We modified UML to provide a second way to run real device drivers in the guest OS, which works even when no software emulator exists for the device of interest. With this strategy, the VMM traps and forwards the privileged I/O instructions and DMA requests issued by the guest OS device driver to the actual hardware. The programmer specifies which devices UML can access, and the VMM enforces the proper I/O port space and memory access for the device.

This second strategy requires extensions to enable ReVirt to log and replay the execution of the device driver. Whereas the first strategy placed the device emulator above the ReVirt logging layer, the second strategy forwards driver actions to the actual hardware device. Because this device may not be deterministic, ReVirt must log any information sent from the device to the driver. Specifically, ReVirt must log and replay the data returned by IN instructions, memory-mapped I/O instructions, and DMA memory loads. To avoid confusing the device, ReVirt suppresses output to the device during replay.

The VMM must also be modified to support running real device drivers in the guest OS. Supporting x86 IN/OUT instructions is straightforward since they are privileged and naturally trap to the VMM. After receiving a trap from an IN/OUT instruction, TTVM verifies the port address and forwards the instruction to the device. After the instruction is executed, TTVM transparently passes the result back to the guest. Like IN/OUT instructions, interrupt handling requires few modifications. UML already uses signals in place of hardware interrupts, so when the VMM receives an interrupt from a device, it is forwarded to the guest using signals.

To support memory-mapped I/O and DMA, we augmented the guest OS's memory-mapping and DMA allocation routines to request access to the host's physical memory by issuing system calls to the host. For memory-mapped I/O, the guest OS asks the host to map the desired I/O region into the guest OS's address space; for DMA, the guest OS asks the host to allocate physical memory suitable for DMA transfers. These actions are necessary since the guest is controlling a real device. However, because ReVirt must log all loads from the resulting virtual address range, the guest cannot have unchecked access to the newly allocated resources. As a result, TTVM uses page protections to trap all interactions with the allocated virtual memory range. Upon receiving a trap, TTVM emulates all guest driver loads and stores that interact with memory-mapped I/O space or DMA memory range. This provides sufficient opportunity to log and replay all interactions between the guest driver and the device.

One shortcoming of this approach is that the extra traps and logging operations slows loads and stores to memory-mapped I/O space and DMA memory. In practice, this slowdown is minimized since most bulk transfers are implemented using x86 repeat string instructions, so bulk transfers cause only a single trap. We experienced no noticeable slowdown as a result of using this mechanism. For example, a guest USB serial port driver can operate at full speed, and the guest OS soundcard driver can play an MP3 music clip and record audio in real-time.

Allowing the guest device driver to initiate DMA transfers allows the guest OS to potentially corrupt host memory, since the device can access all of the host's physical memory [17]. The programmer who is worried about this possibility can interpret DMA setup commands and deny access to memory outside the intended range. Some recent processors, such as AMD's Opteron, provide an I/O MMU which can be used to restrict accesses to the intended memory range.

3.3 Checkpointing for faster time travel

Logging and replaying a virtual machine from a single checkpoint at the beginning of the run is sufficient to recreate the state at any point in the run from any other point in the run. However, logging and replay alone is not sufficient to recreate this state quickly because the virtual machine must re-execute each instruction from the beginning to the desired point, and this period may span many days. To accelerate time travel over long periods, TTVM takes periodic checkpoints while the virtual machine is running [23] (ReVirt started only from a disk checkpoint of a powered-off virtual machine).

The simplest way to checkpoint the virtual machine is to save a complete copy of the state of the virtual machine. This state is comprised of the CPU registers, the virtual machine's physical memory, the virtual disk, and any state in the VMM or host kernel that affects the execution of the virtual machine. For UML, this host kernel state includes the address space mappings for the guest-user host process and the guest-kernel host process, the state of open host file descriptors, and the registration of various signal handlers (analogous to the interrupt descriptor table on real hardware).

Figure 2: Checkpoints of the memory pages are represented as undo and redo logs. The figure shows the redo and undo logs that would results for checkpoint$_2$ for the given sequence of writes to memory pages. The same technique is used to store the changes to the mappings of guest$\rightarrow $host disk blocks.
\begin{figure}\centering\epsfig{file=memorycheckpoint.eps, width=3in}\hrulefill\end{figure}

Saving a complete copy of the virtual-machine state is simple but inefficient. We use copy-on-write and versioning to reduce the space and time overhead of checkpointing for both memory pages and disk blocks.

We use copy-on-write on memory pages to save only those pages that have been modified since the last checkpoint. Starting with the memory contents at a current point, the memory state can be restored back to a prior checkpoint by restoring the memory pages in the undo log. The memory undo log at checkpoint$_n$ contains the set of memory pages that have been modified between checkpoint$_n$ and checkpoint$_{n+1}$, with the values of the pages in the undo log being those at checkpoint$_n$ (Figure 2). Analogously, TTVM uses a redo log of memory to enable a programmer to move forward in time to a future checkpoint. The memory redo log at checkpoint$_n$ contains the set of memory pages that have been modified between checkpoint$_{n-1}$ and checkpoint$_n$, with the values of these memory pages again being those at checkpoint$_n$ (Figure 2). If a memory page is modified during two successive checkpoint intervals, the memory undo and redo logs for the checkpoint between these two intervals will contain the same values for that memory page. TTVM detects this case and shares such data between the undo and redo logs. E.g., in Figure 2, page A's data is shared between checkpoint$_2$'s undo and redo logs.

We use similar logging techniques for disk, but we add an extra level of indirection to avoid copying disk blocks into the undo and redo logs. The extra level of indirection is implemented by saving multiple versions of each guest disk block [25] and maintaining, in memory, the current mapping from guest disk blocks to host disk blocks. The first time a guest disk block is written after a checkpoint, TTVM writes the data to a free host disk block and updates the mapping from guest to host disk blocks to point to the new host disk block. This strategy saves copying the before-image of the guest disk block into the undo log of the prior checkpoint, and it saves copying the after-image of the disk block into the redo log of the next checkpoint. The undo and redo logs need store only the changes to the guest$\rightarrow $host disk block map. Changes to the map are several orders of magnitude smaller than the disk block data and can be write buffered in non-volatile RAM to provide persistence if the host crashes.

3.4 Time traveling between points of a run

TTVM enables a programmer to travel arbitrarily backward and forward in time through a run. Time traveling between points in a run requires a combination of restoring to a checkpoint and replay. To travel from point A to point B, TTVM first restores to the checkpoint that is prior to point B (call this checkpoint$_n$). TTVM then replays the execution of the virtual machine from checkpoint$_n$ to point B. The more frequently checkpoints are taken, the smaller the expected duration of the replay phase of time travel.

Restoring to checkpoint$_n$ requires several steps. TTVM first restores the copy saved at checkpoint$_n$ of the virtual machine's registers and any state in the VMM or host kernel that affects the execution of the virtual machine. Restoring the memory image and guest$\rightarrow $host disk block map to the values they had at checkpoint$_n$ makes use of the data stored in the undo logs if moving backward in time, or redo logs when moving forward in time. Consider how to move from a point after checkpoint$_{n+2}$ backward to checkpoint$_n$ (restoring to a checkpoint in the future uses the redo log in an analogous manner). TTVM first restores the memory pages and disk block map entries from the undo log at checkpoint$_n$. It then examines the undo log at checkpoint$_{n+1}$ and restores any memory pages and disk block map entries that were not restored by the undo log at checkpoint$_n$. Finally, TTVM examines the undo log at checkpoint$_{n+2}$ and restores any memory pages and disk block map entries that were not restored by the undo logs at checkpoint$_n$ or checkpoint$_{n+1}$. Applying the logs in this order ensures that each memory page is written at most once.

3.5 Adding and deleting checkpoints

An initial set of checkpoints are taken during the original, logged run. TTVM supports the ability to add or delete checkpoints from this original set. At any time, the user may choose to delete existing checkpoints to free up space. While replaying a portion of a run, a programmer may choose to supplement the initial set of checkpoints to speed up anticipated time-travel operations. This section describes how to manipulate the undo and redo logs of the memory pages when adding or deleting a checkpoint. The undo and redo logs for the guest$\rightarrow $host disk block map are maintained in exactly the same manner.

Adding a new checkpoint can be done when the programmer is replaying a portion of a run from a checkpoint (say, checkpoint$_1$). TTVM can add a new checkpoint$_2$ at the current point of replay (between existing checkpoint$_1$ and checkpoint$_3$) by creating the undo and redo logs for checkpoint$_2$. TTVM identifies the memory pages to store in checkpoint$_2$'s redo log by maintaining a list of the memory pages that are modified since the system started replaying at checkpoint$_1$, just as it does during logging to support the copy-on-write undo log. TTVM conservatively identifies the memory pages to store in checkpoint$_2$'s undo log as the same set of pages in checkpoint$_1$'s undo log, but with the values at the current point of replay. TTVM could remove memory pages from checkpoint$_1$'s undo log that were not written between checkpoint$_1$ and checkpoint$_2$, but this is not needed for correctness and TTVM does not currently include this optimization. It is difficult to remove extra pages from checkpoint$_3$'s redo log without executing through to checkpoint$_3$, because knowing which pages to remove would require knowing the time of the last modification to the page, and this would require trapping all modifications to all memory pages.

Deleting an existing checkpoint (presumably to free up space for a new checkpoint) can be done during the original logging run or when the programmer is replaying a portion of a run. TTVM goes through two steps to delete checkpoint$_2$ (between checkpoint$_1$ and checkpoint$_3$). TTVM first moves the pages in checkpoint$_2$'s undo log to checkpoint$_1$'s undo log. A page that already exists in checkpoint$_1$'s undo log takes precedence over a page from checkpoint$_2$'s undo log. Similarly, TTVM moves the pages in checkpoint$_2$'s redo log to checkpoint$_3$'s redo log. A page that already exists in checkpoint$_3$'s redo log takes precedence over a page from checkpoint$_2$'s redo log.

3.6 Expected usage model

We expect programmers to use TTVM in three phases. Throughout each phase, TTVM will take checkpoints at a specified frequency (the default is every 25 seconds). In phase 1, the programmer runs a test to trigger an error. This phase may last a long time (hours or days). As we will see in Section 5, taking checkpoints every 25 seconds adds less than 4% time overhead, so it is reasonable to leave checkpointing on even during long runs.

For long runs, the space needed to store the undo/redo logs for all checkpoints will build up and TTVM will be forced to delete some checkpoints. By default, TTVM keeps more checkpoints for periods near the current time than for periods farther in the past; this policy assumes that periods in the near past are likely to be the ones of interest during debugging. TTVM chooses checkpoints to delete by fitting them to a distribution in which the distance between checkpoints increases exponentially as one goes farther back in time [4].

In phase 2, the programmer attaches the debugger, switches the system from logging to replay, and prepares to debug the error. To speed up later time-travel operations, programmers can specify a shorter interval between checkpoints (say, every 10 seconds), then replay the portion of the run they expect to debug (say, a 10 minute interval). As in phase 1, TTVM will keep checkpoints according to an exponential distribution that favors checkpoints close to the current (replaying) time.

In phase 3, the programmer debugs the error by time-traveling forward and backward through the run. We next describe new debugging commands that allow a programmer to navigate conveniently through the run.

4 TTVM-aware gdb

In this section, we discuss how to integrate the time traveling capability of TTVM into a debugger (gdb). We first introduce the new reverse debugging commands and discuss how they are implemented. We then describe how to manage the interaction of time traveling with the state changes generated by gdb. Finally, we describe how our prototype implements communication between gdb and TTVM.

4.1 Time travel within gdb

In addition to the standard set of commands available to debuggers, TTVM allows gdb to restore prior checkpoints, replay portions of the execution, and examine arbitrary past states. A promising application of these technique is providing the illusion of virtual-machine reverse execution.

Reverse execution, when applied to debugging, provides the functionality standard debuggers are often trying to approximate. For example, a kernel may follow an errant pointer, read an unintended data structure, and crash. Using a standard debugger, the programmer can gain control when the crash occurs. A common approach at this point is to traverse up the call stack. This approximates reverse execution because it allows the programmer to see the partial state of function invocations that occurred before the crash. However, it only allows the programmer to see variables stored on the stack, and it only shows the values for those variables at the time of each function invocation. Another approach is to re-run the system with a watchpoint set on the pointer variable. However, this approach works only if the bug is deterministic. Also, the programmer may have to step through many watchpoints to get to the modification of interest. Ideally, the programmer would like to go to the last time the pointer was modified. However, current debugging commands only allow the programmer to go to the next modification of the pointer.

To overcome this deficiency, we add a new command to gdb called reverse continue. reverse continue takes the virtual machine back to a previous point, where the point is identified by the reverse equivalents of forward breakpoints, watchpoints, and steps. In the example above, the programmer could set a watchpoint on the pointer variable and issue the reverse continue command. After executing this command, the debugger would return control to the programmer at the last time the variable was modified. This jump backward in time restores all virtual-machine state, so the programmer could then use standard gdb commands to gather further information.

Figure 3: Reverse continue uses two execution passes. The programmer calls reverse continue at time x. In the first pass, (1) TTVM restores checkpoint$_1$, then (2) replays execution until time x. Along the way, TTVM makes note of breakpoints BP$_1$, BP$_2$, and BP$_3$. When time x is reached, the programmer sees a list of these breakpoints and selects one to go back to. In the example shown here, the programmer selects BP$_2$. In the second pass, TTVM again (3) restores checkpoint$_1$ and (4) replays execution, but this time TTVM stops at breakpoint BP$_2$ and returns control to the programmer (5).

reverse continue is implemented using two execution passes (Figure 3). In the first pass, TTVM restores a checkpoint that is earlier in the execution and replays the virtual machine until the current location is reached again. During the replay of the first pass, gdb receives control on each trap caused by gdb commands issued by the programmer (e.g., breakpoints, watchpoints, steps). gdb keeps a list of these traps and, when the first pass is over, allows the programmer to choose a trap to time travel back to. During the second pass, gdb again restores the same checkpoint and replays. When the selected trap is encountered during the second pass, gdb returns control to the programmer.

This approach is general enough that it provides reverse versions to all gdb commands. For example, the programmer can set instruction breakpoints, conditional breakpoints, data watchpoints, or single steps (or combinations thereof), and the reverse continue command keeps track of all resulting traps and allows the programmer to go back to any of them. We have found each of these reverse commands useful in our kernel debugging (Section 6).

We found reverse step to be a particularly useful command (reverse step goes back a specified number of instructions). This command is particularly useful because it tracks instructions executed in guest kernel mode regardless of the kernel entry point. For example, if gdb has control inside a guest interrupt handler, and the interrupt occurred while the guest kernel was running, reverse step can go backward to determine which guest kernel instruction was preempted. We implemented an optimized version of the reverse step command because it is used so frequently and because the unoptimized version generates an inordinate number of traps. On x86, gdb uses the CPU's trap flag to single step forward. reverse step also uses the trap flag, but doing so naively would generate a trap to gdb on each instruction replayed from the checkpoint. To reduce the number of traps caused by reverse step, we wait to set the trap flag during each pass's replay until the system is near the current point. Our current implementation defines ``near'' to be within one system call of the current point, but one could easily define ``near'' to be within a certain number of branches.

Finally, we implemented a goto command that a programmer can use to jump to an arbitrary time in the execution, either behind or ahead of the current point. Our current prototype defines time in a coarse-grained manner by counting guest system calls, but it is possible to define time by logging the real-time clock, or by counting branches. goto is most useful when the programmer is trying to find a time (possibly far from the current point) when an error condition is present.

4.2 TTVM/debugger interactions

Time traveling must affect debugging state (e.g., the set of breakpoints) differently from how it affects other virtual-machine state. Time-travel operations change virtual-machine state but should preserve debugging state. For example, if the programmer sets a breakpoint and executes reverse continue, the breakpoint must be unperturbed by the checkpoint restoration so that it can trap to gdb during the replay passes. Unfortunately, gdb mingles debugging state and virtual-machine state. For example, gdb implements software breakpoints by inserting breakpoint instructions directly into the code page of the process being debugged.

To enable special treatment of debugging state, TTVM tracks all modifications gdb makes to the virtual state. This allows TTVM to make debugging state persistent across checkpoint restores by manually restoring the debugging state after the checkpoint is restored. In addition, TTVM removes any modifications caused by the debugger before taking a checkpoint, so that the checkpoint includes only the original virtual-machine state.

4.3 TTVM on guest applications

While the focus of this paper is using TTVM to debug guest kernels, TTVM can also be used to debug multi-threaded guest applications. In order to debug guest applications, TTVM must be able to detect the currently running guest process from within the host kernel.

Detecting the current guest process is important because UML multiplexes a single host process address space between all guest application processes. Because of this multiplexing, TTVM must detect which guest process is currently occupying the host process address space before applying any modifications needed for debugging. For example, if TTVM tries to set a breakpoint in process A, but process B is currently running, TTVM must wait until process A is switched back in before applying any changes. Otherwise, process B will incorrectly trigger the breakpoint.

To determine the current guest process, TTVM must understand guest kernel task structs. Fortunately, the guest kernel stack pointer is known within the host kernel, and the current guest application pid is in a well-known location relative to the stack pointer.

With these enhancements, TTVM enables programmers to use reverse debugging commands for debugging guest applications.

4.4 Reverse gdb implementation

gdb and TTVM communicate via the gdb remote serial protocol (Figure 1). The remote serial protocol between gdb and TTVM is implemented in a host kernel device driver. gdb already understands the remote serial protocol and so need not be modified. The host kernel device driver receives the low-level remote protocol commands and reads/writes the state of the virtual machine on behalf of the debugger. These reads and writes are transparent to the virtual machine: neither the execution or replay of the virtual machine is affected (unless the guest kernel reads state that has been modified by gdb).

Although gdb did not have to be modified to understand the remote serial protocol, it did have to be extended to implement the new reverse commands. This provided complete integration of the new reverse commands inside the familiar gdb environment.

5 Performance

In this section, we measure the time and space overhead of TTVM and the time to execute time-travel operations. Since debugging is dominated by human think time, our main goal in this section is only to verify that the overhead of TTVM is reasonable.

All measurements are carried out on a uniprocessor 3 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of memory and a 120 GB Hitachi Deskstar GXP disk. The host OS is Linux 2.4.18 with the skas extensions for UML and TTVM modifications. The guest OS is the UML port of Linux 2.4.20 and includes host drivers for the USB and soundcard devices. We configure the guest to have 256 MB of memory and a 5 GB disk, which is stored on a host raw disk partition. Both host and guest file systems are initialized from a RedHat 9 distribution. All results represent the average of at least 5 trials.

Figure 4: The effect of checkpointing on running time. Running times are normalized to running the workload without any checkpoints (1027 seconds for kernel build, 1135 seconds for SPECweb, 1114 seconds for PostMark). Overhead is low even for very short checkpoint intervals of 10 seconds.
\begin{figure}\centering\epsfig{file=check_overhead.eps, height=1.8in}\hrulefill\end{figure}

We measure three guest workloads: SPECweb99 using the Apache web server, three successive builds of the Linux 2.4 kernel (each of the three builds executes make clean; make dep; make bzImage), and the PostMark file system benchmark [14].

We first measure the time and space overhead of the logging needed to support replay. Checkpointing is disabled for this set of measurements. Running these workloads on TTVM with logging adds 12% time overhead for SPECweb99, 11% time overhead for kernel build, and 3% time overhead for PostMark, relative to running the same workload in UML on standard Linux (with skas). The space overhead of TTVM needed to support logging is 85 KB/sec for SPECweb99, 7 KB/sec for kernel build, and 2 KB/sec for PostMark. These time and space overheads are easily acceptable for debugging.

Replay occurs at approximately the same speed as the logged run. For the three workloads, TTVM takes 1-3% longer to replay than it did to log. For workloads with idle periods, replay can be much faster than logging because TTVM skips over idle periods during replay.

We next measure the cost of enabling checkpointing. Figures 4 and 5 show how the time and space overheads of checkpointing vary with the interval between checkpoints. Taking checkpoints adds a small amount of time overhead and a modest amount of space overhead. Taking checkpoints every 25 seconds adds less than 4% time overhead and 2-6 MB/s space overhead. Even taking checkpoints as frequently as every 10 seconds is feasible for moderate periods of time, adding 15-27% time overhead and 4-7 MB/s space overhead.

Figure 5: Space overhead of checkpoints. For long runs, programmers will cap the maximum space used by checkpoints by deleting selected checkpoints.
\begin{figure}\centering\epsfig{file=space_overhead.eps, height=1.8in}\hrulefill\end{figure}

This low space and time overhead is due to using undo/redo logs for memory data and logging for disk data. In particular, logging new versions of guest disk blocks rather than overwriting the old versions allowed us to perform checkpointing with negligible extra I/O (a checkpoint contains only the changes to the guest$\rightarrow $host disk block map). Surprisingly, taking checkpoints more frequently sometimes improves PostMark's running time. The reason for this is how we allocate disk blocks. A guest disk block is assigned to a new host disk block only on the first time the guest disk block is written after a checkpoint. More frequent checkpoints thus cause the disk block allocation to resemble a pure logging disk, which improved the spatial locality for writes for PostMark.

Because checkpointing adds little time overhead, it is reasonable to perform long debugging runs while checkpointing relatively often (say, every 25 seconds). The space overhead of checkpoints over long runs will be capped typically at a maximum size, which causes TTVM to delete checkpoints according to its default exponential-thinning policy [4].

Next we consider the speed of moving forward and backward through the execution of a run. As described in Section 3.4, time travel takes two steps: (1) restoring to the checkpoint prior to the target point and (2) replaying the execution from this checkpoint to the target point. Figure 6 shows the time to restore a checkpoint as a function of the distance from the current point to a prior or future checkpoint. We used a checkpoint interval of 25 seconds and spanned the run with about 40 checkpoints. Moving to a checkpoint farther away takes more time because TTVM must examine and restore more undo/redo logs for memory pages and the disk block map. Recall that each unique memory page is written at most once, even when restoring to a point that is many checkpoints away. Hence the maximum time of a restore operation approaches the time to restore all memory pages (plus reading the small undo/redo logs of the disk block maps). The large jump at a restore distance of 600 seconds for PostMark is due to restoring enough data to thrash the host memory. The time for the second step depends on the distance from the checkpoint reached in step one to the target point. Since replay on TTVM occurs at approximately the same speed as the logged run, the average time of this step for a random point is half the checkpoint interval.

Figure 6: Time to restore to a checkpoint.
\begin{figure}\centering\epsfig{file=restore_overhead.eps, height=2in}\hrulefill\end{figure}

6 Experience and lessons learned

In this section, we describe our experience using TTVM to track down four kernel bugs and show how using reverse gdb commands simplified the process. Our experience provides anecdotal support for the intuition that reverse debugging is a useful primitive for debugging; it does not constitute an unbiased user study for quantifying the benefits of reverse debugging. After describing several anecdotes, we describe the general types of situations in which reverse debugging is most helpful and discuss the interactivity of using reverse debugging commands.

6.1 USB device driver

We first describe our experience with a non-deterministic bug that we encountered on the host OS running on our desktop computer. Our desktops use Inside Out Networks Edgeport USB serial port hubs to communicate with our test machines, but these were causing our desktop computers to crash intermittently (usually overnight). This bug provided a good test for our system. As a bug in the current host OS, it provided a realistic context for our tool. As a non-deterministic bug, it provided a chance to show the usefulness of time travel. As a bug in the host device driver, it makes use of our extensions to UML that enable host device drivers to run (and therefore be debugged) in the guest OS. Last but not least, it was getting in the way of our work.

We started by enabling in our guest OS the io_ti serial port hub driver and usb-uhci chipset driver. These drivers communicates with their devices via IN/OUT instructions, interrupts, and DMA. As expected, the drivers caused the guest OS to crash intermittently.

We first tried to debug the problem without TTVM. gdb showed that the crash occurred because the interrupt service routine called the kernel schedule function. However, it proved difficult to deduce the sequence of events that caused the interrupt service routine to eventually call schedule. The call stack showed the call sites of each active function, but the number and size of these functions made it difficult to understand the sequence of events that led to the call to schedule. In addition, the stack contained only the current value of each variable and it was difficult to determine what had happened without seeing the prior values of each variable.

The usual approach to gain more information about the sequence of events that lead to a fault is to run the program again and step through the execution with a debugger (i.e. cyclic debugging). This approach fails for this type of bug for several reasons. First, the bug was intermittent and so would usually not appear on successive runs. Second, even if the bug did appear on a succeeding run, it would likely not appear at the same time; this makes it difficult to zero in on the bug over multiple runs. Third, bugs in device drivers pose special problems for traditional debuggers because the device may require real-time responses that cannot be met by a paused driver.

TTVM avoids these difficulties during debugging because it does not need to use the device in order to replay and debug the driver. TTVM logs all interactions with the device, including I/O, interrupts, and DMA. During replay, the driver transitions through the same sequence of states as it went through during logging (i.e. while it was driving the device), regardless of timing or the state of the device. As a result, debugging can pause the driver during replay without altering its execution.

Using TTVM, we were able to step backward through the execution of the bug and understand quickly the sequence of events that led to the call to schedule. Under high load, a buffer in the tty driver became full during an interrupt service routine invocation, and this caused the generic usb driver to call down to the io_ti driver, which in turn issued a configuration request to the device to throttle its communication with the computer. After issuing this configuration request, the driver waited for a response, which caused the call to schedule. This bug appeared in the current release of Linux 2.4 and 2.6. We also discovered a related bug which could cause the throttling routine to wait on a semaphore, and this can also cause a call to schedule during an interrupt service routine invocation. Using TTVM and reverse debugging, we understood the bug quickly and in enough detail to submit a patch which is being included in the Linux kernel.

6.2 System call bug

While developing TTVM, we encountered a guest kernel panic. We first tried to debug this error using traditional cyclic debugging techniques and standard gdb, i.e. not using time travel. First, we set a breakpoint in the guest kernel panic function that is invoked when the kernel encounters an unrecoverable error. We then re-ran the virtual machine, hoping for the guest kernel panic to re-occur. Fortunately, the bug re-occurred and gdb gained control when a memory exception caused by guest kernel code triggered a panic. The fault occurred after the guest kernel attempted to execute an instruction at address 0. We tried to understand how the kernel reached address 0 by traversing up the call stack of the guest kernel. However, gdb was unable to traverse up the call stack because the most recent call frame had been corrupted when the kernel called the ``function'' at address 0. Since gdb was unable to find the prior function, we next looked at the data on the stack manually to try to find a valid return address. We found a few candidate addresses, but we eventually gave up after disassembling the guest kernel and searching through various assembly code segments.

We next used reverse commands to debug the guest kernel. We attached gdb to the guest-kernel host process at the time of the panic. We then performed several reverse single steps which took us to the point at which address 0 had been executed. We performed another reverse single step and found that this address had been reached from the system call handler. At this point we used a number of standard gdb commands to inspect the state of the virtual machine and determine the cause of the error. The bug was an incorrect entry in the system call table, which caused a function call to address 0.

6.3 Kernel race condition bug

We next tried debugging a guest kernel bug that had been posted on the UML kernel mailing list. The error we found was triggered by executing the user-mode command ltrace strace ls, which caused the guest kernel to panic.

First, we tried to debug the error using traditional cyclic debugging techniques and standard gdb, i.e. not using time travel. We set a breakpoint in the kernel panic function and waited for the error. After the panic function was called, we traversed up the call stack to learn more about how the error occurred. According to our initial detective work, the guest kernel received a debug exception while in guest kernel mode. However, debug exceptions generated during guest kernel execution get trapped by the debugger prior to delivery. Since gdb had not received notification of an extraneous debugging exception, we deemed a guest kernel-mode debugging exception unlikely.

By performing additional call stack traversals, we determined that the current execution path originated from a function responsible for redirecting debugging exceptions to guest user-mode processes. This indicated that the debugging exception occurred in guest user mode, rather than in guest kernel mode as indicated by the virtual CPU mode variable. Based on that information, we concluded that either the call stack was corrupted, or the virtual mode variable was corrupted.

We sought to track changes to the virtual mode variable in two ways, both of which failed. First, we set a forward watchpoint on the mode variable and re-ran the test. This failed because the mode variable was modified legitimately too often to examine each change. Second, we set a number of conditional breakpoints to try to narrow down the time of the corruption. With the conditional breakpoints in place, we re-ran the test case but it executed without any errors. We then gave up trying to track down this non-deterministic bug with cyclic debugging and switched to using our reverse debugging tools.

Our first step when using the reverse debugging tools was to set a reverse watchpoint on the virtual CPU mode variable. After trapping on the guest kernel panic, we were taken back to an exception handler where the variable was being changed intentionally. The new value indicated that the virtual machine was in virtual kernel mode when this exception was delivered. We reverse stepped to confirm that this was in fact the case, and then went forward to examine the subsequent execution. Since the virtual CPU mode variable is global, and the nested exception handler did not reset the value when it returned, the original exception handler (the user mode debugging exception) incorrectly determined that the debugging exception occurred while in virtual kernel mode. At this point it was clear that the exception handler should have included this variable as part of the context that is restored upon return.

It is instructive to compare our experience fixing this bug with that of a core Linux developer. Ingo Molnar was able to fix this bug in ``an hour at most'' by seeing the ``whole state of the kernel'' and because he understood the code well [20]. Ingo's expertise apparently enabled him to deduce (from the state of the stack) the sequence of events that led to the corruption of the virtual mode variable. This approach would have been more difficult had the error manifested after the relevant stack frames had been popped. In contrast, our approach was to try to go back to the point at which the virtual mode variable was corrupted. While our naive approach failed with forward debugging, it was easy with reverse debugging and would still have worked even if the relevant stack frames had been popped.

6.4 mremap bug

Finally, we debugged a bug in the mremap system call (CVE CAN-2003-0985), which occurs in the architecture-independent portion of Linux. This bug corrupts a process's address map when the process calls mremap with invalid arguments; it manifests later as a kernel panic when that process exits.

First, we tried to debug the error using traditional cyclic debugging and standard gdb, i.e. not using time travel. We attached gdb when the kernel called panic. We traversed up the call stack and discovered that the cause of the panic was a corrupted (zero-length) address map. Unfortunately, the kernel panic occurred long after the process's address map was corrupted, and we were unable to discern the point of the initial corruption. We thought to re-run the workload with watchpoints set on the memory locations of the variables denoting the start and end of the address map. However, these memory locations changed each run because they were allocated dynamically. Thus, while the bug crashed the system each time the program was run, the details of how the bug manifested were non-deterministic, and this prevented us from using traditional watchpoints. Even if the bug were completely deterministic, using forward watchpoints would require the programmer to step laboriously through each resulting trap during the entire run to see if the values at that trap were correct.

Reverse debugging provided a way to go easily from the kernel panic to the point at which the corruption initially occurred. After attaching gdb at the kernel panic, we set a reverse watchpoint on the memory locations of the variables denoting the start and end of the address map. This watchpoint took us to when the guest OS was executing the mremap that had been passed invalid arguments, and at this point it was obvious that mremap had failed to validate its arguments properly.

6.5 Lessons learned

We learned four main lessons from our experience about the types of bugs that TTVM helps debug.

First, we learned that many bugs are too fragile to find with cyclic debugging. Heisenbugs [13] such as race conditions thwart cyclic debugging because they manifest only occasionally, depending on transient conditions such as timing. However, cyclic debugging often fails even for bugs that manifest each time a program runs, because the details of how they manifest change from run to run. Details like the internal state of an OS depend on numerous, hard-to-control variables, such as the sequence and scheduling order of all processes that have been run since boot. In the case of the mremap bug, minor changes to the internal OS state (the address of dynamically allocated kernel memory) prevented us from using watchpoints during cyclic debugging.

In contrast, TTVM's reverse debugging makes even the most fragile of bugs perfectly repeatable. TTVM's deterministic replay ensures that the details of the internal OS state will remain consistent from run to run and thus enables the use of debugging commands that depend on fragile information.

Second, we learned that bugs that take a long time to trigger highlight the poor match between standard debugging commands and most debugging scenarios. Standard watchpoints and breakpoints are best suited to go to a future point of possible interest. In contrast, programmers usually want to go to a prior point of possible interest, because they are following in reverse the chain of events between the execution of the buggy code and the ensuing detection of that error. Trying to go backward by re-running the workload with forward watchpoints and breakpoints is very clumsy without TTVM. If the bug is fragile, the bug may not manifest (or may not manifest in the same way) during each run. Even if the bug manifests in exactly the same way during each run, cyclic debugging forces a programmer to step manually through all spurious traps since the beginning of the run, or to run the program numerous times searching manually for the period of interest.

In contrast, TTVM's reverse debugging commands provided exactly the semantics we needed to find each of the bugs we encountered. For the kernel race bug and the mremap bug, the point of interest was the last time a variable changed before the error was detected. For the system call bug, the point of interest was a few instructions before the error was detected.

Third, we learned that standard debuggers are difficult to use for bugs that corrupt the stack or that are detected after the relevant stack frame is popped. Standard debuggers approximate time travel by traversing up the call stack, but this form of time travel is neither complete nor reliable. Stack traversal is incomplete because it shows only the values of variables on the stack and because it shows those variables only at the time of their function's last invocation. For the mremap bug, the code that contained the error was executed during a prior system call and was not on the stack when the error was detected. Stack traversal is unreliable because it works only if the stack is intact. For the system call bug, the stack had been corrupted by an erroneous function call. Similarly, common buffer overflow attacks corrupt the stack and render stack traversal difficult. It is ironic that one of the most powerful techniques of standard debuggers depends on the partial correctness of the program being debugged.

In contrast, TTVM provides complete and reliable time travel. It is complete in that it can show the state of any variable at any time in the past. It is reliable in that it works without depending on the correctness of the program being debugged.

Finally, we learned that bugs in device drivers are particularly hard to solve with cyclic debugging. Device driver bugs are often non-deterministic because they depend on interrupts and device inputs. In addition, devices may require real-time responses that cannot be met by a paused driver. In contrast, TTVM allows one to replay device drivers deterministically, and TTVM's replay works without interacting with the device.

6.6 Interactivity of reverse debugging

To debug the bugs described in this section we triggered the error while logging, then replayed the virtual machine to diagnose the error. When replaying, we set the checkpoint interval to ten seconds. This checkpoint interval added reasonable runtime overhead for debugging (in fact, it added less overhead than some forward debugging commands, such as conditional breakpoints) and was short enough to support interactive performance for reverse commands.

We found the reverse commands to be quite interactive. Usually we used the reverse commands to step back a couple instructions or to go back to a recent breakpoint within the current checkpoint interval. This caused most of our checkpoint state to remain in the host file cache, which further sped up subsequent reverse commands. Restoring to the nearest checkpoint took under 1 second; replaying to the point of interest took five seconds on average (given the ten second checkpoint interval). Taking a reverse single step took about 12 seconds on average; this includes the time for both passes (Figure 3), i.e. restoring the checkpoint twice and replaying the remainder of the checkpoint interval twice. Overall, we found the speed of our reverse debugging commands fast enough to support interactive usage comfortably.

7 Related work

Our work draws on techniques from several areas, including prior work on reverse execution of deterministic programs, replay of non-deterministic programs, and virtual-machine replay. Our unique contribution is combining these techniques in a way that enables powerful debugging capabilities that have not been available previously for systems (such as operating systems) that have numerous sources of non-determinism, that run for long periods of time, or that interact with hardware devices.

Re-executing prior computation through checkpoint and logging has been discussed in the programming community for many years [30,10,1,4,6,24]. However, no prior reverse debugger would work for operating systems or for a user-level virtual machine such as User-Mode Linux. The primary limitation of prior systems is they are unable to replay programs with non-deterministic effects such as interrupts and thread scheduling [10,4,1,6]. User-Mode Linux simulates interrupts and preemptions with asynchronous signals, and prior reverse debuggers are not able to replay such events. In addition, most reverse debuggers implement time travel by logging all changes to variables [30,1,21,6], and this approach logs too much data when debugging long-running systems such as an OS. Finally, some systems work at the language level [27], and this prevents them from working with operating systems in a different language or with application binaries.

Researchers have worked to replay non-deterministic programs through various approaches. The events of different threads can be replayed at different levels, including logging accesses to shared objects [16], logging the scheduling order of multi-threaded programs on a uniprocessor [22], or logging physical memory accesses in hardware [2]. Other researchers have worked to optimize the amount of data logged [21].

Virtual-machine replay has been used for non-debugging purposes. Hypervisor used virtual-machine replay to synchronize the state of a backup machine to provide fault tolerance [5]. ReVirt used virtual-machine replay to enable detailed intrusion analysis [9]. Our work applies virtual-machine replay to achieve a new capability, which is reverse debugging of operating systems. TTVM also supports additional features over prior virtual-machine replay systems. TTVM supports the ability to run, log, and replay real device drivers in the guest OS, whereas prior virtual-machine replay systems ran only para-virtualized device drivers in the guest OS. In addition, TTVM can travel quickly forward and backward in time through its use of checkpoints and undo and redo logs, whereas ReVirt supported only a single checkpoint of a powered-off virtual machine and Hypervisor did not need to support time travel at all (it only supported replay within an epoch).

Another approach for providing time travel is to use a complete machine simulator, such as Simics [18]. Simics supports deterministic replay for operating systems and applications and has an interface to a debugger. However, Simics is drastically slower than TTVM, and this makes debugging long runs impractical. On a 750 MHz Ultrasparc III, Simics executes 2-6 million x86 instructions per second (several hundred times slower than native) [18], whereas virtual machines typically incur a slowdown of less than 2x.

8 Conclusions and future work

We have described the design and implementation of a time-traveling virtual machine and shown how to use TTVM to add powerful capabilities for debugging operating systems. We integrated TTVM with a general-purpose debugger, implementing commands such as reverse breakpoint, reverse watchpoint, and reverse step.

TTVM added reasonable overhead in the context of debugging. The logging needed to support time travel for three OS-intensive workloads added 3-12% in running time and 2-85 KB/sec in log space. Taking checkpoints every minute added less than 4% time overhead and 1-5 MB/sec space overhead. Taking checkpoints every 10 second to prepare for debugging a portion of a run added 16-33% overhead and enabled reverse debugging commands to complete in about 12 seconds.

We used TTVM and our new reverse debugging commands to fix four OS bugs that were difficult to find with standard debugging tools. We found the reverse debugging commands to be intuitive to understand and fast and easy to use. Reverse debugging proved especially helpful in finding bugs that were fragile due to non-determinism, bugs in device drivers, bugs that required long runs to trigger, bugs that corrupted the stack, and bugs that were detected after the relevant stack frame was popped.

Possible future work includes exploring non-traditional debugging operations that are enabled by time travel and deterministic replay. For example, one could measure the effects of a programmer-induced change by forking the execution and comparing the results after the change with the results of the original run.

9 Acknowledgments

Our shepherd, Steve Gribble, and the anonymous reviews provided feedback that helped improve this paper. This research was supported in part by ARDA grant NBCHC030104, National Science Foundation grants CCR-0098229 and CCR-0219085, and by Intel Corporation. Samuel King was supported in part by a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship.


H. Agrawal, R. A. DeMillo, and E. H. Spafford.
An Execution-Backtracking Approach to Debugging.
IEEE Software, 8(3), May 1991.

D. F. Bacon and S. C. Goldstein.
Hardware-Assisted Replay of Multiprocessor Programs.
In Proceedings of the ACM/ONR Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Debugging, May 1991.

P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield.
Xen and the Art of Virtualization.
In Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, October 2003.

B. Boothe.
Efficient algorithms for bidirectional debugging.
In Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 299-310, June 2000.

T. C. Bressoud and F. B. Schneider.
Hypervisor-Based Fault-Tolerance.
In Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 1-11, December 1995.

S.-K. Chen, W. K. Fuchs, and J.-Y. Chung.
Reversible Debugging Using Program Instrumentation.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(8):715-727, August 2001.

A. Chou, J. Yang, B. Chelf, S. Hallem, and D. Engler.
An Empirical Study of Operating Systems Errors.
In Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 73-88, October 2001.

J. Dike.
A user-mode port of the Linux kernel.
In Proceedings of the 2000 Linux Showcase and Conference, October 2000.

G. W. Dunlap, S. T. King, S. Cinar, M. Basrai, and P. M. Chen.
ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual-Machine Logging and Replay.
In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pages 211-224, December 2002.

S. I. Feldman and C. B. Brown.
IGOR: a system for program debugging via reversible execution.
In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Debugging, pages 112-123, November 1988.

K. Fraser, S. Hand, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, A. Warfield, and M. Williamson.
Reconstructing I/O.
Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-596, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, August 2004.

R. P. Goldberg.
Survey of Virtual Machine Research.
IEEE Computer, pages 34-45, June 1974.

J. Gray.
Why do computers stop and what can be done about it?
In Proceedings of the 1986 Symposium on Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, pages 3-12, January 1986.

J. Katcher.
PostMark: A New File System Benchmark.
Technical Report TR3022, Network Appliance, October 1997.

S. T. King, G. W. Dunlap, and P. M. Chen.
Operating System Support for Virtual Machines.
In Proceedings of the 2003 USENIX Technical Conference, pages 71-84, June 2003.

T. J. LeBlanc and J. M. Mellor-Crummey.
Debugging Parallel Programs with Instant Replay.
IEEE Transactions on Computers, pages 471-482, April 1987.

J. LeVasseur, V. Uhlig, J. Stoess, and S. Gotz.
Unmodified Device Driver Reuse and Improved System Dependability via Virtual Machines.
In Proceedings of the 2004 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), December 2004.

P. S. Magnusson, M. Christensson, J. Eskilson, D. Forsgren, G. Hallberg, J. Hogberg, F. Larsson, A. Moestedt, and B. Werner.
Simics: A Full System Simulation Platform.
IEEE Computer, 35(2):50-58, February 2002.

J. M. Mellor-Crummey and T. J. LeBlanc.
A Software Instruction Counter.
In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 78-86, April 1989.

I. Molnar, February 2005.
personal communication.

R. H. B. Netzer and M. H. Weaver.
Optimal Tracing and Incremental Reexecution for Debugging Long-Running Programs.
In Proceedings of the 1994 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1994.

M. Russinovich and B. Cogswell.
Replay for concurrent non-deterministic shared-memory applications.
In Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 258-266, May 1996.

C. P. Sapuntzakis, R. Chandra, B. Pfaff, J. Chow, M. S. Lam, and M. Rosenblum.
Optimizing the Migration of Virtual Computers.
In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, December 2002.

S. Srinivasan, S. Kandula, C. Andrews, and Y. Zhou.
Flashback: A light-weight rollback and deterministic replay extension for software debugging.
In Proceedings of the 2004 USENIX Technical Conference, June 2004.

J. D. Strunk, G. R. Goodson, M. L. Scheinholtz, C. A. Soules, and G. R. Ganger.
Self-securing storage: Protecting data in compromised systems.
In Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), October 2000.

J. Sugerman, G. Venkitachalam, and B.-H. Lim.
Virtualizing I/O Devices on VMware Workstation's Hosted Virtual Machine Monitor.
In Proceedings of the 2001 USENIX Technical Conference, June 2001.

A. Tolmach and A. W. Appel.
A Debugger for Standard ML.
Journal of Functional Programming, 5(2):155-200, April 1995.

A. Whitaker, M. Shaw, and S. D. Gribble.
Scale and Performance in the Denali Isolation Kernel.
In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), December 2002.

M. Xu, R. Bodik, and M. D. Hill.
A ``Flight Data Recorder'' for Enabling Full-system Multiprocessor Deterministic Replay.
In Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Computer Architecture, June 2003.

M. V. Zelkowitz.
Reversible execution.
Communications of the ACM, 16(9):566, September 1973.

About this document ...

Debugging operating systems with time-traveling virtual machines

This document was generated using the LaTeX2HTML translator Version 2002 (1.62)

Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, Nikos Drakos, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999, Ross Moore, Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.

The command line arguments were:
latex2html -split 0 -show_section_numbers -local_icons paper.tex

The translation was initiated by Sam King on 2005-02-17


... programmer1
In this paper, ``programmer'' refers to the person debugging the system, and ``debugger'' refers to the programming tool (e.g., gdb) used by the programmer to examine and control the program.
We use the skas (separate kernel address space) version of UML, which requires a patch of the host kernel.

next_inactive up previous
Samuel Talmadge King 2005-02-17

This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the 2005 USENIX Annual Technical Conference,
April 10–15, 2005, Anaheim, CA, USA

Last changed: 2 Mar. 2005 aw
USENIX '05 Technical Program
USENIX '05 Home