This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org --- v2: * splitted patch in 3: - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem; - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled as module; - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test; * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY; * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to decrease the diff; v3: * rebased with last kunit branch * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes: 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998 And these from patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/ --- lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++++++------ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +++++++++------------ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
If unsure, say N.
-config TEST_USER_COPY - tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections" - depends on m - help - This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checks - on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic - user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load, - a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary - protections. - - If unsure, say N. - config TEST_BPF tristate "Test BPF filter functionality" depends on m && NET @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
If unsure, say N.
+config USER_COPY_KUNIT + tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections" + depends on KUNIT + depends on m + help + This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checks + on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic + user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load, + a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary + protections. + + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/. + + If unsure, say N. + config LIST_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o # KUnit tests obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c similarity index 91% rename from lib/test_user_copy.c rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644 --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>
/* * Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls. @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ ({ \ int cond = (condition); \ if (cond) \ - pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ cond; \ })
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size) return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL; }
-static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; size_t start, end, i, zero_start, zero_end; @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) return ret; }
-static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, +static int test_copy_struct_from_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; @@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, return ret; }
-static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) +static void user_copy_test(struct kunit *test) { int ret = 0; char *kmem; @@ -192,16 +193,14 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #endif
kmem = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!kmem) - return -ENOMEM; + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, kmem == NULL, "kmalloc failed");
user_addr = vm_mmap(NULL, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0); if (user_addr >= (unsigned long)(TASK_SIZE)) { - pr_warn("Failed to allocate user memory\n"); kfree(kmem); - return -ENOMEM; + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate user memory"); }
usermem = (char __user *)user_addr; @@ -245,9 +244,9 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #undef test_legit
/* Test usage of check_nonzero_user(). */ - ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); + ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* Test usage of copy_struct_from_user(). */ - ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); + ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
/* * Invalid usage: none of these copies should succeed. @@ -309,23 +308,18 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void)
vm_munmap(user_addr, PAGE_SIZE * 2); kfree(kmem); - - if (ret == 0) { - pr_info("tests passed.\n"); - return 0; - } - - return -EINVAL; }
-module_init(test_user_copy_init); - -static void __exit test_user_copy_exit(void) -{ - pr_info("unloaded.\n"); -} +static struct kunit_case user_copy_test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(user_copy_test), + {} +};
-module_exit(test_user_copy_exit); +static struct kunit_suite user_copy_test_suite = { + .name = "user_copy", + .test_cases = user_copy_test_cases, +};
+kunit_test_suites(&user_copy_test_suite); MODULE_AUTHOR("Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org"); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 -- 2.26.2
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
v2: * splitted patch in 3: - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem; - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled as module; - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test; * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY; * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to decrease the diff; v3: * rebased with last kunit branch * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes: 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998 And these from patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++++++------ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +++++++++------------ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
If unsure, say N.-config TEST_USER_COPY
- tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"
- depends on m
- help
This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.If unsure, say N.config TEST_BPF tristate "Test BPF filter functionality" depends on m && NET @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
If unsure, say N.+config USER_COPY_KUNIT
- tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"
- depends on KUNIT
- depends on m
- help
This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please referto the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.If unsure, say N.config LIST_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o # KUnit tests obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c similarity index 91% rename from lib/test_user_copy.c rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644 --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>
/*
- Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
@@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ ({ \ int cond = (condition); \ if (cond) \
pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named "test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity? "context" or "kunit" seems better.
cond; \ })
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size) return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL; }
-static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; size_t start, end, i, zero_start, zero_end; @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) return ret; }
-static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, +static int test_copy_struct_from_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; @@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, return ret; }
-static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) +static void user_copy_test(struct kunit *test) { int ret = 0; char *kmem; @@ -192,16 +193,14 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #endif
kmem = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!kmem)
return -ENOMEM;
- KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, kmem == NULL, "kmalloc failed");
This would need to be an ASSERT, yes?
user_addr = vm_mmap(NULL, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0); if (user_addr >= (unsigned long)(TASK_SIZE)) {
pr_warn("Failed to allocate user memory\n");return -ENOMEM;
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate user memory");
Why FAIL instead of ASSERT?
usermem = (char __user *)user_addr; @@ -245,9 +244,9 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #undef test_legit
/* Test usage of check_nonzero_user(). */
- ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
- ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* Test usage of copy_struct_from_user(). */
- ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
/*
- Invalid usage: none of these copies should succeed.
@@ -309,23 +308,18 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void)
vm_munmap(user_addr, PAGE_SIZE * 2); kfree(kmem);
- if (ret == 0) {
pr_info("tests passed.\n");return 0;- }
- return -EINVAL;
Does KUnit provide a end-of-test summary now?
}
-module_init(test_user_copy_init);
-static void __exit test_user_copy_exit(void) -{
- pr_info("unloaded.\n");
-} +static struct kunit_case user_copy_test_cases[] = {
- KUNIT_CASE(user_copy_test),
- {}
+};
-module_exit(test_user_copy_exit); +static struct kunit_suite user_copy_test_suite = {
- .name = "user_copy",
- .test_cases = user_copy_test_cases,
+};
+kunit_test_suites(&user_copy_test_suite); MODULE_AUTHOR("Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org"); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847
2.26.2
Otherwise, yes, looking good.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
v2: * splitted patch in 3: - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem; - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled as module; - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test; * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY; * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to decrease the diff; v3: * rebased with last kunit branch * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes: 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998 And these from patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++++++------ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +++++++++------------ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
If unsure, say N.-config TEST_USER_COPY
tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"depends on mhelpThis builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.If unsure, say N.config TEST_BPF tristate "Test BPF filter functionality" depends on m && NET @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
If unsure, say N.+config USER_COPY_KUNIT
tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"depends on KUNITdepends on mhelpThis builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please referto the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.If unsure, say N.config LIST_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o # KUnit tests obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c similarity index 91% rename from lib/test_user_copy.c rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644 --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>
/*
- Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
@@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ ({ \ int cond = (condition); \ if (cond) \
pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named "test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity? "context" or "kunit" seems better.
It will be out of the standard of the other tests in KUnit, but I agree that I should not use the same name "test" in the argument and in the name of the macro. I'll replace it with "context" instead of "test" in arg.
cond; \})
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size) return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL; }
-static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; size_t start, end, i, zero_start, zero_end; @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) return ret; }
-static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, +static int test_copy_struct_from_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; @@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, return ret; }
-static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) +static void user_copy_test(struct kunit *test) { int ret = 0; char *kmem; @@ -192,16 +193,14 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #endif
kmem = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!kmem)return -ENOMEM;
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, kmem == NULL, "kmalloc failed");This would need to be an ASSERT, yes?
Yep, I'll fix it.
user_addr = vm_mmap(NULL, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0); if (user_addr >= (unsigned long)(TASK_SIZE)) {
pr_warn("Failed to allocate user memory\n"); kfree(kmem);return -ENOMEM;
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate user memory"); }Why FAIL instead of ASSERT?
I did it this way so I wouldn't have to test twice if I had a memory allocation problem, once in the "if" and once in the ASSERT, so the memory of the other kmalloc is freed in case of memory allocation error in this memory allocation.
usermem = (char __user *)user_addr;@@ -245,9 +244,9 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #undef test_legit
/* Test usage of check_nonzero_user(). */
ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* Test usage of copy_struct_from_user(). */
ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* * Invalid usage: none of these copies should succeed.@@ -309,23 +308,18 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void)
vm_munmap(user_addr, PAGE_SIZE * 2); kfree(kmem);
if (ret == 0) {pr_info("tests passed.\n");return 0;}return -EINVAL;Does KUnit provide a end-of-test summary now?
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
}
-module_init(test_user_copy_init);
-static void __exit test_user_copy_exit(void) -{
pr_info("unloaded.\n");-} +static struct kunit_case user_copy_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(user_copy_test),{}+};
-module_exit(test_user_copy_exit); +static struct kunit_suite user_copy_test_suite = {
.name = "user_copy",.test_cases = user_copy_test_cases,+};
+kunit_test_suites(&user_copy_test_suite); MODULE_AUTHOR("Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org"); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847
2.26.2
Otherwise, yes, looking good.
-- Kees Cook
Thanks for the review!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:19 PM Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
v2: * splitted patch in 3: - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem; - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled as module; - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test; * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY; * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to decrease the diff; v3: * rebased with last kunit branch * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes: 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998 And these from patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++++++------ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +++++++++------------ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
If unsure, say N.-config TEST_USER_COPY
tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"depends on mhelpThis builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.If unsure, say N.config TEST_BPF tristate "Test BPF filter functionality" depends on m && NET @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
If unsure, say N.+config USER_COPY_KUNIT
tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"depends on KUNITdepends on mhelpThis builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checkson the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basicuser/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundaryprotections.For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please referto the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.If unsure, say N.config LIST_KUNIT_TEST tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS depends on KUNIT diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o # KUnit tests obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c similarity index 91% rename from lib/test_user_copy.c rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644 --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> +#include <kunit/test.h>
/*
- Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
@@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ ({ \ int cond = (condition); \ if (cond) \
pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named "test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity? "context" or "kunit" seems better.
It will be out of the standard of the other tests in KUnit, but I agree that I should not use the same name "test" in the argument and in the name of the macro. I'll replace it with "context" instead of "test" in arg.
cond; \})
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size) return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL; }
-static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; size_t start, end, i, zero_start, zero_end; @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) return ret; }
-static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, +static int test_copy_struct_from_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) { int ret = 0; @@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, return ret; }
-static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) +static void user_copy_test(struct kunit *test) { int ret = 0; char *kmem; @@ -192,16 +193,14 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #endif
kmem = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!kmem)return -ENOMEM;
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, kmem == NULL, "kmalloc failed");This would need to be an ASSERT, yes?
Yep, I'll fix it.
user_addr = vm_mmap(NULL, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0); if (user_addr >= (unsigned long)(TASK_SIZE)) {
pr_warn("Failed to allocate user memory\n"); kfree(kmem);return -ENOMEM;
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate user memory"); }Why FAIL instead of ASSERT?
I did it this way so I wouldn't have to test twice if I had a memory allocation problem, once in the "if" and once in the ASSERT, so the memory of the other kmalloc is freed in case of memory allocation error in this memory allocation.
Hm, In this case the test needs to stop, I'll fix it.
usermem = (char __user *)user_addr;@@ -245,9 +244,9 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) #undef test_legit
/* Test usage of check_nonzero_user(). */
ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* Test usage of copy_struct_from_user(). */
ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); /* * Invalid usage: none of these copies should succeed.@@ -309,23 +308,18 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void)
vm_munmap(user_addr, PAGE_SIZE * 2); kfree(kmem);
if (ret == 0) {pr_info("tests passed.\n");return 0;}return -EINVAL;Does KUnit provide a end-of-test summary now?
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
}
-module_init(test_user_copy_init);
-static void __exit test_user_copy_exit(void) -{
pr_info("unloaded.\n");-} +static struct kunit_case user_copy_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(user_copy_test),{}+};
-module_exit(test_user_copy_exit); +static struct kunit_suite user_copy_test_suite = {
.name = "user_copy",.test_cases = user_copy_test_cases,+};
+kunit_test_suites(&user_copy_test_suite); MODULE_AUTHOR("Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org"); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847
2.26.2
Otherwise, yes, looking good.
-- Kees Cook
Thanks for the review!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg?
No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg?
No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again.
Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then all module-based tests would include a summary line?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:45 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg?
No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again.
Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then all module-based tests would include a summary line?
I will check what can be done.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:45 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in dmesg and not the kunit-tool?
Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg?
No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again.
Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then all module-based tests would include a summary line?
Nowadays with modprobe this is shown, is it necessary to add anything else?
root@(none):/# modprobe user_copy_kunit TAP version 14 # Subtest: user_copy 1..1 random: fast init done ok 1 - user_copy_test ok 1 - user_copy root@(none):/#
-- Kees Cook
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
These tests are failing (at least) for arm-v7, loongarch, and mips qemu emulations; see below for failure logs.
Any idea if those might be architecture problems, problems with qemu, or problems with the test ?
Thanks, Guenter
--- On arm:
[ 13.097105] # usercopy_test_valid: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.097105] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.097105] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.097105] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.097105] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.098876] # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.099378] not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid [ 13.101143] # usercopy_test_invalid: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.101143] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.101143] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.101143] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.101143] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.102726] # usercopy_test_invalid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.103167] not ok 2 usercopy_test_invalid [ 13.104744] # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.104744] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.104744] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.104744] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.104744] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.106485] # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.106935] not ok 3 usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user [ 13.108812] # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.108812] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.108812] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.108812] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.108812] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.110643] # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.111096] not ok 4 usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user [ 13.111260] # usercopy: pass:0 fail:4 skip:0 total:4 [ 13.111401] # Totals: pass:0 fail:4 skip:0 total:4 [ 13.111533] not ok 40 usercopy
On loongarch:
[ 5.202648] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000000008, era == 90000000040f4b60, ra == 900000000436e558 [ 5.203061] Oops[#1]: [ 5.203288] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 877 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G N 6.11.0-rc2+ #1 [ 5.203469] Tainted: [N]=TEST [ 5.203523] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 [ 5.203686] pc 90000000040f4b60 ra 900000000436e558 tp 9000000107dec000 sp 9000000107defc90 [ 5.203801] a0 ffffffffffff4000 a1 90000001063554f8 a2 0000000000000000 a3 9000000107defb84 [ 5.203913] a4 0000000000000001 a5 0000000000000000 a6 900000000696e030 a7 9000000004b617c0 [ 5.204025] t0 9000000104ab8840 t1 0000800000000000 t2 0000000000208040 t3 9000000107dec000 [ 5.204134] t4 0000000000000000 t5 9000000006f39f10 t6 0000000000000001 t7 0000000000006000 [ 5.204245] t8 0000000045eeca10 u0 9000000004b61818 s9 90000001002e7e40 s0 0000000008000000 [ 5.204355] s1 9000000104b58040 s2 0000000000000000 s3 fffffffffffff000 s4 9000000005f62d00 [ 5.204465] s5 9000000104ab8840 s6 90000000061752e8 s7 0000000000000000 s8 9000000004144df8 [ 5.204580] ra: 900000000436e558 arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa0/0x1fc [ 5.204928] ERA: 90000000040f4b60 stack_top+0x58/0xa8 [ 5.205009] CRMD: 000000b0 (PLV0 -IE -DA +PG DACF=CC DACM=CC -WE) [ 5.205189] PRMD: 00000004 (PPLV0 +PIE -PWE) [ 5.205286] EUEN: 00000000 (-FPE -SXE -ASXE -BTE) [ 5.205398] ECFG: 00071c1d (LIE=0,2-4,10-12 VS=7) [ 5.205629] ESTAT: 00010000 [PIL] (IS= ECode=1 EsubCode=0) [ 5.205732] BADV: 0000000000000008 [ 5.205802] PRID: 0014c010 (Loongson-64bit, Loongson-3A5000) [ 5.205897] Modules linked in: [ 5.205982] Process kunit_try_catch (pid: 877, threadinfo=9000000107dec000, task=9000000104ab8840) [ 5.206120] Stack : 9000000005f62d00 fffffffffffff000 900000000616f000 9000000107da5b40 [ 5.206323] 9000000107defd58 9000000004a6cce4 0000000000000dc0 9000000104b58040 [ 5.206444] 9000000100004ac0 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.206562] 900000000616f000 90000001002d7b00 9000000107da5b40 9000000004a6c2c4 [ 5.206681] 90000000061752e8 9000000104ab8840 9000000005f62d00 fffffffffffff000 [ 5.206799] 900000000616f000 90000001002d7b00 9000000107da5b40 9000000004a6cb9c [ 5.206918] 9000000107cc8000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000008000 [ 5.207035] 0000000000000007 0000000000000022 0000000000000000 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.207153] 900000000616f000 90000001079d2f00 90000001002d7b00 9000000004ba6a60 [ 5.207271] 9000000104ab9170 90000000056c0788 00000000000000b0 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.207389] ... [ 5.207450] Call Trace: [ 5.207467] [<90000000040f4b60>] stack_top+0x58/0xa8 [ 5.207588] [<900000000436e554>] arch_pick_mmap_layout+0x9c/0x1fc [ 5.207675] [<9000000004a6cce0>] kunit_vm_mmap_init+0x104/0x12c [ 5.207758] [<9000000004a6c2c0>] __kunit_add_resource+0x48/0xd0 [ 5.207839] [<9000000004a6cb98>] kunit_vm_mmap+0x84/0xc8 [ 5.207913] [<9000000004ba6a5c>] usercopy_test_init+0xb8/0x25c [ 5.207993] [<9000000004a6c064>] kunit_try_run_case+0x58/0x184 [ 5.208073] [<9000000004a6e260>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x48 [ 5.208168] [<9000000004144914>] kthread+0x130/0x140 [ 5.208238] [<90000000040f1c04>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x8/0xa4 [ 5.208323] [ 5.208370] Code: 15fffe84 26165190 2400158e <28c0220c> 14000070 03bffe10 0010c18c 15ffff90 0014c18c [ 5.208583] [ 5.208822] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [ 5.209975] # usercopy_test_valid: try faulted: last line seen lib/usercopy_kunit.c:304 [ 5.210227] # usercopy_test_valid: internal error occurred preventing test case from running: -4 [ 5.210890] # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 5.210942] not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid
On mips:
CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00000018, epc == 80105f14, ra == 80299028 Oops[#1]: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 783 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G N 6.11.0-rc2-00102-g8857973f206d #1 Tainted: [N]=TEST Hardware name: mti,malta $ 0 : 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 $ 4 : 00000000 854ccec0 ffffffff 00000002 $ 8 : 82c6c340 8155ba9c 42314149 00000001 $12 : ffffffff 00000012 00000000 00000012 $16 : 00000000 08000000 82c6c040 82c6c040 $20 : 821c7c28 854ccec0 82205c68 80164c7c $24 : 00000000 00000000 $28 : 85b14000 85b17d20 00000001 80299028 Hi : 00000000 Lo : 00000004 epc : 80105f14 mips_stack_top+0x20/0x78 ra : 80299028 arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa4/0x1a4 Status: 1000a403 KERNEL EXL IE Cause : 00800008 (ExcCode 02) BadVA : 00000018 PrId : 00019300 (MIPS 24Kc) Modules linked in: Process kunit_try_catch (pid: 783, threadinfo=85b14000, task=854ccec0, tls=00000000) Stack : 82205c68 80164c7c 00400cc0 00000004 813d989c 85b17dd4 85b2ac00 81250000 82c6c040 8070f984 00000001 802f1560 00000400 00000dc0 ffffffff 8070fa14 81b43a80 00000000 00000000 657ad470 00000001 85b2ac00 821c7c1c 821c7c1c 81250000 8070efb8 81b43bc0 657ad470 821c7c1c 81250000 85b2ac00 81250000 821c7c1c 81250000 821c7c28 854ccec0 82205c68 8070fa48 821c7c1c 821c7c1c ... Call Trace: [<80105f14>] mips_stack_top+0x20/0x78 [<80299028>] arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa4/0x1a4 [<8070f984>] kunit_vm_mmap_init+0xe8/0x114 [<8070efb8>] __kunit_add_resource+0x4c/0xdc [<8070fa48>] kunit_vm_mmap+0x98/0xf0 [<808181a4>] usercopy_test_init+0xc4/0x254 [<8070eca8>] kunit_try_run_case+0x74/0x234 [<807110f8>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x28/0x50 [<801647fc>] kthread+0x12c/0x154 [<80103078>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c Code: 9084635d 0003182b 00031b80 <8c460018> 3402ffff 30840004 000213c0 00431023 8cc30004 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- # usercopy_test_valid: try faulted: last line seen lib/usercopy_kunit.c:304 # usercopy_test_valid: internal error occurred preventing test case from running: -4 # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:48:45AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
These tests are failing (at least) for arm-v7, loongarch, and mips qemu emulations; see below for failure logs.
Any idea if those might be architecture problems, problems with qemu, or problems with the test ?
Thanks, Guenter
Several more failures. I missed those earlier because they don't result in backtraces.
sparc32:
# usercopy_test_valid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:209 Expected val_u64 == 0x5a5b5c5d6a6b6c6d, but val_u64 == 1515936861 (0x5a5b5c5d) 0x5a5b5c5d6a6b6c6d == 6510899242581322861 (0x5a5b5c5d6a6b6c6d) legitimate get_user (u64) failed to do copy # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid # usercopy_test_invalid: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 2 usercopy_test_invalid # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 3 usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 4 usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user # usercopy: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4 # Totals: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4
nios2:
# module: usercopy_kunit 1..4 # usercopy_test_valid: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 1 usercopy_test_valid # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:279 Expected val_u8 == 0, but val_u8 == 90 (0x5a) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u8) # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:280 Expected val_u16 == 0, but val_u16 == 23131 (0x5a5b) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u16) # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:281 Expected val_u32 == 0, but val_u32 == 1515936861 (0x5a5b5c5d) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u32) # usercopy_test_invalid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 2 usercopy_test_invalid # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 3 usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 4 usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user # usercopy: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4 # Totals: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4 not ok 37 usercopy
microblaze:
# usercopy_test_valid: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 1 usercopy_test_valid # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:279 Expected val_u8 == 0, but val_u8 == 90 (0x5a) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u8) # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:280 Expected val_u16 == 0, but val_u16 == 23131 (0x5a5b) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u16) # usercopy_test_invalid: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:281 Expected val_u32 == 0, but val_u32 == 1515936861 (0x5a5b5c5d) zeroing failure for illegal get_user (u32) # usercopy_test_invalid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 2 usercopy_test_invalid # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 3 usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1 ok 4 usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user # usercopy: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4 # Totals: pass:3 fail:1 skip:0 total:4 not ok 39 usercopy
On arm:
[ 13.097105] # usercopy_test_valid: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.097105] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.097105] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.097105] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.097105] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.098876] # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.099378] not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid [ 13.101143] # usercopy_test_invalid: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.101143] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.101143] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.101143] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.101143] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.102726] # usercopy_test_invalid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.103167] not ok 2 usercopy_test_invalid [ 13.104744] # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.104744] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.104744] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.104744] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.104744] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.106485] # usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.106935] not ok 3 usercopy_test_check_nonzero_user [ 13.108812] # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/usercopy_kunit.c:311 [ 13.108812] Expected user_addr < (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))), but [ 13.108812] user_addr == 4294967284 (0xfffffff4) [ 13.108812] (unsigned long)((((0xC0000000UL))) - (((0x01000000UL)))) == 3204448256 (0xbf000000) [ 13.108812] Failed to allocate user memory [ 13.110643] # usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 13.111096] not ok 4 usercopy_test_copy_struct_from_user [ 13.111260] # usercopy: pass:0 fail:4 skip:0 total:4 [ 13.111401] # Totals: pass:0 fail:4 skip:0 total:4 [ 13.111533] not ok 40 usercopy
On loongarch:
[ 5.202648] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000000008, era == 90000000040f4b60, ra == 900000000436e558 [ 5.203061] Oops[#1]: [ 5.203288] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 877 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G N 6.11.0-rc2+ #1 [ 5.203469] Tainted: [N]=TEST [ 5.203523] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 [ 5.203686] pc 90000000040f4b60 ra 900000000436e558 tp 9000000107dec000 sp 9000000107defc90 [ 5.203801] a0 ffffffffffff4000 a1 90000001063554f8 a2 0000000000000000 a3 9000000107defb84 [ 5.203913] a4 0000000000000001 a5 0000000000000000 a6 900000000696e030 a7 9000000004b617c0 [ 5.204025] t0 9000000104ab8840 t1 0000800000000000 t2 0000000000208040 t3 9000000107dec000 [ 5.204134] t4 0000000000000000 t5 9000000006f39f10 t6 0000000000000001 t7 0000000000006000 [ 5.204245] t8 0000000045eeca10 u0 9000000004b61818 s9 90000001002e7e40 s0 0000000008000000 [ 5.204355] s1 9000000104b58040 s2 0000000000000000 s3 fffffffffffff000 s4 9000000005f62d00 [ 5.204465] s5 9000000104ab8840 s6 90000000061752e8 s7 0000000000000000 s8 9000000004144df8 [ 5.204580] ra: 900000000436e558 arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa0/0x1fc [ 5.204928] ERA: 90000000040f4b60 stack_top+0x58/0xa8 [ 5.205009] CRMD: 000000b0 (PLV0 -IE -DA +PG DACF=CC DACM=CC -WE) [ 5.205189] PRMD: 00000004 (PPLV0 +PIE -PWE) [ 5.205286] EUEN: 00000000 (-FPE -SXE -ASXE -BTE) [ 5.205398] ECFG: 00071c1d (LIE=0,2-4,10-12 VS=7) [ 5.205629] ESTAT: 00010000 [PIL] (IS= ECode=1 EsubCode=0) [ 5.205732] BADV: 0000000000000008 [ 5.205802] PRID: 0014c010 (Loongson-64bit, Loongson-3A5000) [ 5.205897] Modules linked in: [ 5.205982] Process kunit_try_catch (pid: 877, threadinfo=9000000107dec000, task=9000000104ab8840) [ 5.206120] Stack : 9000000005f62d00 fffffffffffff000 900000000616f000 9000000107da5b40 [ 5.206323] 9000000107defd58 9000000004a6cce4 0000000000000dc0 9000000104b58040 [ 5.206444] 9000000100004ac0 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.206562] 900000000616f000 90000001002d7b00 9000000107da5b40 9000000004a6c2c4 [ 5.206681] 90000000061752e8 9000000104ab8840 9000000005f62d00 fffffffffffff000 [ 5.206799] 900000000616f000 90000001002d7b00 9000000107da5b40 9000000004a6cb9c [ 5.206918] 9000000107cc8000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000008000 [ 5.207035] 0000000000000007 0000000000000022 0000000000000000 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.207153] 900000000616f000 90000001079d2f00 90000001002d7b00 9000000004ba6a60 [ 5.207271] 9000000104ab9170 90000000056c0788 00000000000000b0 0e03af9ea058218b [ 5.207389] ... [ 5.207450] Call Trace: [ 5.207467] [<90000000040f4b60>] stack_top+0x58/0xa8 [ 5.207588] [<900000000436e554>] arch_pick_mmap_layout+0x9c/0x1fc [ 5.207675] [<9000000004a6cce0>] kunit_vm_mmap_init+0x104/0x12c [ 5.207758] [<9000000004a6c2c0>] __kunit_add_resource+0x48/0xd0 [ 5.207839] [<9000000004a6cb98>] kunit_vm_mmap+0x84/0xc8 [ 5.207913] [<9000000004ba6a5c>] usercopy_test_init+0xb8/0x25c [ 5.207993] [<9000000004a6c064>] kunit_try_run_case+0x58/0x184 [ 5.208073] [<9000000004a6e260>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x20/0x48 [ 5.208168] [<9000000004144914>] kthread+0x130/0x140 [ 5.208238] [<90000000040f1c04>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x8/0xa4 [ 5.208323] [ 5.208370] Code: 15fffe84 26165190 2400158e <28c0220c> 14000070 03bffe10 0010c18c 15ffff90 0014c18c [ 5.208583] [ 5.208822] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [ 5.209975] # usercopy_test_valid: try faulted: last line seen lib/usercopy_kunit.c:304 [ 5.210227] # usercopy_test_valid: internal error occurred preventing test case from running: -4 [ 5.210890] # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 [ 5.210942] not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid
On mips:
CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00000018, epc == 80105f14, ra == 80299028 Oops[#1]: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 783 Comm: kunit_try_catch Tainted: G N 6.11.0-rc2-00102-g8857973f206d #1 Tainted: [N]=TEST Hardware name: mti,malta $ 0 : 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 $ 4 : 00000000 854ccec0 ffffffff 00000002 $ 8 : 82c6c340 8155ba9c 42314149 00000001 $12 : ffffffff 00000012 00000000 00000012 $16 : 00000000 08000000 82c6c040 82c6c040 $20 : 821c7c28 854ccec0 82205c68 80164c7c $24 : 00000000 00000000 $28 : 85b14000 85b17d20 00000001 80299028 Hi : 00000000 Lo : 00000004 epc : 80105f14 mips_stack_top+0x20/0x78 ra : 80299028 arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa4/0x1a4 Status: 1000a403 KERNEL EXL IE Cause : 00800008 (ExcCode 02) BadVA : 00000018 PrId : 00019300 (MIPS 24Kc) Modules linked in: Process kunit_try_catch (pid: 783, threadinfo=85b14000, task=854ccec0, tls=00000000) Stack : 82205c68 80164c7c 00400cc0 00000004 813d989c 85b17dd4 85b2ac00 81250000 82c6c040 8070f984 00000001 802f1560 00000400 00000dc0 ffffffff 8070fa14 81b43a80 00000000 00000000 657ad470 00000001 85b2ac00 821c7c1c 821c7c1c 81250000 8070efb8 81b43bc0 657ad470 821c7c1c 81250000 85b2ac00 81250000 821c7c1c 81250000 821c7c28 854ccec0 82205c68 8070fa48 821c7c1c 821c7c1c ... Call Trace: [<80105f14>] mips_stack_top+0x20/0x78 [<80299028>] arch_pick_mmap_layout+0xa4/0x1a4 [<8070f984>] kunit_vm_mmap_init+0xe8/0x114 [<8070efb8>] __kunit_add_resource+0x4c/0xdc [<8070fa48>] kunit_vm_mmap+0x98/0xf0 [<808181a4>] usercopy_test_init+0xc4/0x254 [<8070eca8>] kunit_try_run_case+0x74/0x234 [<807110f8>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x28/0x50 [<801647fc>] kthread+0x12c/0x154 [<80103078>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c Code: 9084635d 0003182b 00031b80 <8c460018> 3402ffff 30840004 000213c0 00431023 8cc30004 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- # usercopy_test_valid: try faulted: last line seen lib/usercopy_kunit.c:304 # usercopy_test_valid: internal error occurred preventing test case from running: -4 # usercopy_test_valid: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 1 usercopy_test_valid
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 08:48:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha vitor@massaru.org
These tests are failing (at least) for arm-v7, loongarch, and mips qemu emulations; see below for failure logs.
Oh my. Good thing this got added to KUnit, then -- the core of the tests haven't actually changed. I will see what I can uncover.
Any idea if those might be architecture problems, problems with qemu, or problems with the test ?
The last two look like NULL derefs (??) and the first seems like maybe a test problem (the failure looks kind of like the CONFIG_MMU=n cases that were fixed earlier).
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Guenter Roeck -
Kees Cook -
Kees Cook -
Vitor Massaru Iha