| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:49:33 -0700
From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
To: "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
Cc: "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding
extended timestamps
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:29 PM <Tim.Bird@...y.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Iurii Zaikin on Thursday, October 10, 2019 6:45 AM
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:47 PM <Tim.Bird@...y.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From Iurii Zaikin on Wednesday, October 09, 2019 4:40 PM
> > > >
> > > > KUnit tests for decoding extended 64 bit timestamps.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/ext4/Kconfig | 12 +++
> > > > fs/ext4/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > fs/ext4/inode-test.c | 221
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 234 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/Kconfig b/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > > > index cbb5ca830e57..cb0b52753674 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -106,3 +106,15 @@ config EXT4_DEBUG
> > > > If you select Y here, then you will be able to turn on debugging
> > > > with a command such as:
> > > > echo 1 > /sys/module/ext4/parameters/mballoc_debug
> > > > +
> > > > +config EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS
> > > > + bool "KUnit test for ext4 inode"
> > > > + depends on EXT4_FS
> > > > + depends on KUNIT
> > > > + help
> > > > + This builds the ext4 inode sysctl unit test, which runs on boot.
> > > > + Tests the encoding correctness of ext4 inode.
> > > > + 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.
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/Makefile b/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > > > index b17ddc229ac5..a0588fd2eea6 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/Makefile
> > > > @@ -13,4 +13,5 @@ ext4-y := balloc.o bitmap.o block_validity.o dir.o
> > > > ext4_jbd2.o extents.o \
> > > >
> > > > ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_FS_POSIX_ACL) += acl.o
> > > > ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_FS_SECURITY) += xattr_security.o
> > > > +ext4-$(CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS) += inode-test.o
> > > > ext4-$(CONFIG_FS_VERITY) += verity.o
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..43bc6cb547cd
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * KUnit test of ext4 inode that verify the seconds part of [a/c/m]
> > > > + * timestamps in ext4 inode structs are decoded correctly.
> > > > + * These tests are derived from the table under
> > > > + * Documentation/filesystems/ext4/inodes.rst Inode Timestamps
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/time64.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "ext4.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +/* binary: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 */
> > > > +#define LOWER_MSB_0 0L
> > > > +/* binary: 01111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 */
> > > > +#define UPPER_MSB_0 0x7fffffffL
> > > > +/* binary: 10000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 */
> > > > +#define LOWER_MSB_1 (-0x80000000L)
> > > > +/* binary: 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 */
> > > > +#define UPPER_MSB_1 (-1L)
> > > > +/* binary: 00111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 */
> > > > +#define MAX_NANOSECONDS ((1L << 30) - 1)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define CASE_NAME_FORMAT "%s: msb:%x lower_bound:%x
> > extra_bits:
> > > > %x"
> > > > +
> > > > +struct timestamp_expectation {
> > > > + const char *test_case_name;
> > > > + struct timespec64 expected;
> > > > + u32 extra_bits;
> > > > + bool msb_set;
> > > > + bool lower_bound;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation *
> > const
> > > > test)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (test->msb_set) {
> > > > + if (test->lower_bound)
> > > > + return LOWER_MSB_1;
> > > > +
> > > > + return UPPER_MSB_1;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (test->lower_bound)
> > > > + return LOWER_MSB_0;
> > > > + return UPPER_MSB_0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +static void inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding(struct kunit *test)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "1901-12-13",
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 0,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "1969-12-31",
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 0,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "1970-01-01",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 0,
> > > > + .expected = {0LL, 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2038-01-19",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 0,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2038-01-19",
> > > It's quite handy if testcase names can be unique, and describe what it is
> > they are testing.
> > >
> > > If someone unfamiliar with this test looks at the results, it's nice if they can
> > > intuit what it was that went wrong, based on the test case name.
> > >
> > > IMHO these names are too short and not descriptive enough.
> >
> > The test cases are pretty much 1:1 to the examples table referenced at
> > the top comment of the file. Would it help if I move the reference
> > comment closer to the test case definition or would you like the test
> > name to have a reference to a table entry encoded into it?
>
> I think moving the comment to right above the testcase definitions
> would be good. Somehow I missed that.
>
Done
> OK - I also missed the usage of the TESTCASE_NAME_FORMAT string. This obviously
> handles the issue of the testcase names being unique, but doesn't help those not
> familiar with the test.
>
> What I'm suggesting is just a little bit of extra wording, describing in English
> what the test is checking for. This is for people looking
> at test results who don't know the internals of the test.
>
> I'm pretty sure these are the wrong descriptions, but something like this:
> {
> .test_case_name = "2038-01-19 check upper edge of 31-bit boundary",
> .msb_set = false,
> .lower_bound = false,
> .extra_bits = 0,
> .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> },
> {
> .test_case_name = "2038-01-19 check first use of extra epoch bit",
> .msb_set = true,
> .lower_bound = true,
> .extra_bits = 1,
> .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> },
>
> I'm not pedantic about it.
Done
> -- Tim
>
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 1,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 1,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2106-02-07",
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 1,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2106-02-07",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 1,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2174-02-25",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 1,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2174-02-25",
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 2,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2242-03-16",
> > > > + .msb_set = true,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 2,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2242-03-16",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 2,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = " 2310-04-04",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 2,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = " 2310-04-04 00:00:00.1",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 6,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2378-04-22
> > > > 00:00:00.MAX_NSEC",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL,
> > > > + .tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2378-04-22",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = true,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 3,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + },
> > > > +
> > > > + {
> > > > + .test_case_name = "2446-05-10",
> > > > + .msb_set = false,
> > > > + .lower_bound = false,
> > > > + .extra_bits = 3,
> > > > + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
> > > > + }
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + struct timespec64 timestamp;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_data); ++i) {
> > > > + timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(&test_data[i]);
> > > > + ext4_decode_extra_time(×tamp,
> > > > + cpu_to_le32(test_data[i].extra_bits));
> > > > +
> > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
> > > > + test_data[i].expected.tv_sec,
> > > > + timestamp.tv_sec,
> > > > + CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
> > > > + test_data[i].test_case_name,
> > > > + test_data[i].msb_set,
> > > > + test_data[i].lower_bound,
> > > > + test_data[i].extra_bits);
> > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
> > > > + test_data[i].expected.tv_nsec,
> > > > + timestamp.tv_nsec,
> > > > + CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
> > > > + test_data[i].test_case_name,
> > > > + test_data[i].msb_set,
> > > > + test_data[i].lower_bound,
> > > > + test_data[i].extra_bits);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct kunit_case ext4_inode_test_cases[] = {
> > > > + KUNIT_CASE(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding),
> > > > + {}
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct kunit_suite ext4_inode_test_suite = {
> > > > + .name = "ext4_inode_test",
> > > > + .test_cases = ext4_inode_test_cases,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +kunit_test_suite(ext4_inode_test_suite);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.23.0.700.g56cf767bdb-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists