kernel/linux.git/lib/kunit, branch v5.18.12

kunit: fix debugfs code to use enum kunit_status, not bool

2022-06-09T08:30:05+00:00

[ Upstream commit 38289a26e1b8a37755f3e07056ca416c1ee2a2e8 ] Commit 6d2426b2f258 ("kunit: Support skipped tests") switched to using `enum kunit_status` to track the result of running a test/suite since we now have more than just pass/fail. This callsite wasn't updated, silently converting to enum to a bool and then back. Fixes: 6d2426b2f258 ("kunit: Support skipped tests") Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

kunit: fix executor OOM error handling logic on non-UML

2022-06-09T08:29:48+00:00

[ Upstream commit 1b11063d32d7e11366e48be64215ff517ce32217 ] The existing logic happens to work fine on UML, but is not correct when running on other arches. 1. We didn't initialize `int err`, and kunit_filter_suites() doesn't explicitly set it to 0 on success. So we had false "failures". Note: it doesn't happen on UML, causing this to get overlooked. 2. If we error out, we do not call kunit_handle_shutdown(). This makes kunit.py timeout when using a non-UML arch, since the QEMU process doesn't ever exit. Fixes: a02353f49162 ("kunit: bail out of test filtering logic quicker if OOM") Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

kunit: bail out of test filtering logic quicker if OOM

2022-06-09T08:29:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit a02353f491622e49c7ddedc6a6dc4f1d6ed2150a ] When filtering what tests to run (suites and/or cases) via kunit.filter_glob (e.g. kunit.py run ), we allocate copies of suites. These allocations can fail, and we largely don't handle that. Note: realistically, this probably doesn't matter much. We're not allocating much memory and this happens early in boot, so if we can't do that, then there's likely far bigger problems. This patch makes us immediately bail out from the top-level function (kunit_filter_suites) with -ENOMEM if any of the underlying kmalloc() calls return NULL. Implementation note: we used to return NULL pointers from some functions to indicate either that all suites/tests were filtered out or there was an error allocating the new array. We'll log a short error in this case and not run any tests or print a TAP header. From a kunit.py user's perspective, they'll get a message about missing/invalid TAP output and have to dig into the test.log to see it. Since hitting this error seems so unlikely, it's probably fine to not invent a way to plumb this error message more visibly. See also: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220329103919.2376818-1-lv.ruyi@zte.com.cn/ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reported-by: Zeal Robot Reported-by: Lv Ruyi Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

Merge tag 'linux-kselftest-kunit-5.18-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest

2022-03-23T19:56:39+00:00

Pull KUnit updates from Shuah Khan: - changes to decrease macro layering string, integer, EQ/NE asserts - remove unused macros - several cleanups and fixes - new list tests for list_del_init_careful(), list_is_head() and list_entry_is_head() * tag 'linux-kselftest-kunit-5.18-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest: list: test: Add a test for list_entry_is_head() list: test: Add a test for list_is_head() list: test: Add test for list_del_init_careful() kunit: cleanup assertion macro internal variables kunit: factor out str constants from binary assertion structs kunit: consolidate KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT macros kunit: remove va_format from kunit_assert kunit: tool: drop mostly unused KunitResult.result field kunit: decrease macro layering for EQ/NE asserts kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts kunit: reduce layering in string assertion macros kunit: drop unused intermediate macros for ptr inequality checks kunit: make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() use KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(), etc. kunit: drop unused assert_type from kunit_assert and clean up macros kunit: split out part of kunit_assert into a static const kunit: factor out kunit_base_assert_format() call into kunit_fail() kunit: drop unused kunit* field in kunit_assert kunit: move check if assertion passed into the macros kunit: add example test case showing off all the expect macros

kunit: make kunit_test_timeout compatible with comment

2022-03-22T22:57:11+00:00

In function kunit_test_timeout, it is declared "300 * MSEC_PER_SEC" represent 5min. However, it is wrong when dealing with arm64 whose default HZ = 250, or some other situations. Use msecs_to_jiffies to fix this, and kunit_test_timeout will work as desired. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220309083753.1561921-3-liupeng256@huawei.com Fixes: 5f3e06208920 ("kunit: test: add support for test abort") Signed-off-by: Peng Liu Reviewed-by: Marco Elver Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Tested-by: Brendan Higgins Cc: Alexander Potapenko Cc: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Wang Kefeng Cc: David Gow Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

kunit: fix UAF when run kfence test case test_gfpzero

2022-03-22T22:57:11+00:00

Patch series "kunit: fix a UAF bug and do some optimization", v2. This series is to fix UAF (use after free) when running kfence test case test_gfpzero, which is time costly. This UAF bug can be easily triggered by setting CONFIG_KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS = 65535. Furthermore, some optimization for kunit tests has been done. This patch (of 3): Kunit will create a new thread to run an actual test case, and the main process will wait for the completion of the actual test thread until overtime. The variable "struct kunit test" has local property in function kunit_try_catch_run, and will be used in the test case thread. Task kunit_try_catch_run will free "struct kunit test" when kunit runs overtime, but the actual test case is still run and an UAF bug will be triggered. The above problem has been both observed in a physical machine and qemu platform when running kfence kunit tests. The problem can be triggered when setting CONFIG_KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS = 65535. Under this setting, the test case test_gfpzero will cost hours and kunit will run to overtime. The follows show the panic log. BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffff82d882e9 Call Trace: kunit_log_append+0x58/0xd0 ... test_alloc.constprop.0.cold+0x6b/0x8a [kfence_test] test_gfpzero.cold+0x61/0x8ab [kfence_test] kunit_try_run_case+0x4c/0x70 kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x11/0x20 kthread+0x166/0x190 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Ubuntu-1.8.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014 To solve this problem, the test case thread should be stopped when the kunit frame runs overtime. The stop signal will send in function kunit_try_catch_run, and test_gfpzero will handle it. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220309083753.1561921-1-liupeng256@huawei.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220309083753.1561921-2-liupeng256@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Peng Liu Reviewed-by: Marco Elver Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Tested-by: Brendan Higgins Cc: Alexander Potapenko Cc: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Wang Kefeng Cc: Daniel Latypov Cc: David Gow Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

kunit: factor out str constants from binary assertion structs

2022-01-31T18:55:39+00:00

If the compiler doesn't optimize them away, each kunit assertion (use of KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ, etc.) can use 88 bytes of stack space in the worst and most common case. This has led to compiler warnings and a suggestion from Linus to move data from the structs into static const's where possible [1]. This builds upon [2] which did so for the base struct kunit_assert type. That only reduced sizeof(struct kunit_binary_assert) from 88 to 64. Given these are by far the most commonly used asserts, this patch factors out the textual representations of the operands and comparator into another static const, saving 16 more bytes. In detail, KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2 + 2, 5) yields the following struct (struct kunit_binary_assert) { .assert = , .operation = "==", .left_text = "2 + 2", .left_value = 4, .right_text = "5", .right_value = 5, } After this change static const struct kunit_binary_assert_text __text = { .operation = "==", .left_text = "2 + 2", .right_text = "5", }; (struct kunit_binary_assert) { .assert = , .text = &__text, .left_value = 4, .right_value = 5, } This also DRYs the code a bit more since these str fields were repeated for the string and pointer versions of kunit_binary_assert. Note: we could name the kunit_binary_assert_text fields left/right instead of left_text/right_text. But that would require changing the macros a bit since they have args called "left" and "right" which would be substituted in `.left = #left` as `.2 + 2 = \"2 + 2\"`. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220113165931.451305-6-dlatypov@google.com/ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: remove va_format from kunit_assert

2022-01-31T18:55:27+00:00

The concern is that having a lot of redundant fields in kunit_assert can blow up stack usage if the compiler doesn't optimize them away [1]. The comment on this field implies that it was meant to be initialized when the expect/assert was declared, but this only happens when we run kunit_do_failed_assertion(). We don't need to access it outside of that function, so move it out of the struct and make it a local variable there. This change also takes the chance to reduce the number of macros by inlining the now simplified KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT_STRUCT() macro. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: split out part of kunit_assert into a static const

2022-01-25T19:49:59+00:00

This is per Linus's suggestion in [1]. The issue there is that every KUNIT_EXPECT/KUNIT_ASSERT puts a kunit_assert object onto the stack. Normally we rely on compilers to elide this, but when that doesn't work out, this blows up the stack usage of kunit test functions. We can move some data off the stack by making it static. This change introduces a new `struct kunit_loc` to hold the file and line number and then just passing assert_type (EXPECT or ASSERT) as an argument. In [1], it was suggested to also move out the format string as well, but users could theoretically craft a format string at runtime, so we can't. This change leaves a copy of `assert_type` in kunit_assert for now because cleaning up all the macros to not pass it around is a bit more involved. Here's an example of the expanded code for KUNIT_FAIL(): if (__builtin_expect(!!(!(false)), 0)) { static const struct kunit_loc loc = { .file = ... }; struct kunit_fail_assert __assertion = { .assert = { .type ... }; kunit_do_failed_assertion(test, &loc, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, &__assertion.assert, ...); }; [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan

kunit: factor out kunit_base_assert_format() call into kunit_fail()

2022-01-25T19:49:53+00:00

We call this function first thing for all the assertion `format()` functions. This is the part that prints the file and line number and assertion type (EXPECTATION, ASSERTION). Having it as part of the format functions lets us have the flexibility to not print that information (or print it differently) for new assertion types, but I think this we don't need that. And in the future, we'd like to consider factoring that data (file, line#, type) out of the kunit_assert struct and into a `static` variable, as Linus suggested [1], so we'd need to extract it anyways. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/kunit-dev/c/i3fZXgvBrfA/m/VULQg1z6BAAJ Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov Reviewed-by: David Gow Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan