Message-ID: <1443431579.8361.234.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:12:59 +0300
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] test_printf: test printf family at runtime

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 19:41 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> This adds a simple module for testing the kernel's printf
> facilities. Previously, some %p extensions have caused a wrong return
> value in case the entire output didn't fit and/or been unusable in
> kasprintf(). This should help catch such issues. Also, it should help
> ensure that changes to the formatting algorithms don't break 
> anything.
> 
> I'm not sure if we have a struct dentry or struct file lying around 
> at
> boot time or if we can fake one, but most %p extensions should be
> testable, as should the ordinary number and string formatting.
> 
> The nature of vararg functions means we can't use a more conventional
> table-driven approach.
> 
> For now, this is mostly a skeleton; contributions are very
> welcome. Some tests are/will be slightly annoying to write, since the
> expected output depends on stuff like CONFIG_*, sizeof(long), runtime
> values etc.

Few comments below.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
> ---
>  lib/Kconfig.debug |   3 +
>  lib/Makefile      |   1 +
>  lib/test_printf.c | 364 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 368 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 lib/test_printf.c
> 
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index ab76b99adc85..c23fc42dc659 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -1685,6 +1685,9 @@ config TEST_STRING_HELPERS
>  config TEST_KSTRTOX
>  	tristate "Test kstrto*() family of functions at runtime"
>  
> +config TEST_PRINTF
> +	tristate "Test printf() family of functions at runtime"
> +
>  config TEST_RHASHTABLE
>  	tristate "Perform selftest on resizable hash table"
>  	default n
> diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> index 13a7c6ae3fec..775de427ea92 100644
> --- a/lib/Makefile
> +++ b/lib/Makefile
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o
>  obj-$(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-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
>  
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT),y)
>  CFLAGS_kobject.o += -DDEBUG
> diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d9a2741c2909
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/test_printf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
> +/*
> + * Test cases for printf facility.
> + */
> +
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> +
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/printk.h>
> +#include <linux/random.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
> +
> +#include <linux/socket.h>
> +#include <linux/in.h>
> +
> +#define BUF_SIZE 256
> +#define FILL_CHAR '$'
> +
> +#define PTR1 ((void*)0x01234567)
> +#define PTR2 ((void*)(long)(int)0xfedcba98)
> +
> +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> +#define PTR1_ZEROES "000000000"
> +#define PTR1_SPACES "         "
> +#define PTR1_STR "1234567"
> +#define PTR2_STR "fffffffffedcba98"
> +#define PTR_WIDTH 16
> +#else
> +#define PTR1_ZEROES "0"
> +#define PTR1_SPACES " "
> +#define PTR1_STR "1234567"
> +#define PTR2_STR "fedcba98"
> +#define PTR_WIDTH 8
> +#endif
> +#define PTR_WIDTH_STR stringify(PTR_WIDTH)
> +
> +static unsigned total_tests __initdata;
> +static unsigned failed_tests __initdata;
> +static char *test_buffer __initdata;
> +
> +static int __printf(4, 0) __init
> +do_test(int bufsize, const char *expect, int elen,
> +	const char *fmt, va_list ap)
> +{
> +	va_list aq;
> +	int ret, written;
> +
> +	total_tests++;
> +
> +	memset(test_buffer, FILL_CHAR, BUF_SIZE);
> +	va_copy(aq, ap);
> +	ret = vsnprintf(test_buffer, bufsize, fmt, aq);
> +	va_end(aq);
> +
> +	if (ret != elen) {
> +		pr_warn("bad return value, expected %d, got %d, 
> format was '%s'\n",
> +			elen, ret, fmt);
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!bufsize) {
> +		if (memchr_inv(test_buffer, FILL_CHAR, BUF_SIZE)) {
> +			pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, 0, \"%s\", ...) 
> wrote to buffer\n",
> +				fmt);
> +			return 1;
> +		}
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	written = min(bufsize-1, elen);
> +	if (test_buffer[written]) {
> +		pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) did not nul
> -terminate buffer\n",
> +			bufsize, fmt);
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (memcmp(test_buffer, expect, written)) {
> +		pr_warn("vsnprintf(buf, %d, \"%s\", ...) wrote '%s', 
> expected '%.*s'\n",
> +			bufsize, fmt, test_buffer, written, expect);
> +		return 1;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static void __printf(3, 4) __init
> +__test(const char *expect, int elen, const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> +	va_list ap;
> +	int rand;
> +	char *p;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(elen >= BUF_SIZE);
> +
> +	va_start(ap, fmt);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Every fmt+args is subjected to four tests: Three where we
> +	 * tell vsnprintf varying buffer sizes (plenty, not quite
> +	 * enough and 0), and then we also test that kvasprintf 
> would
> +	 * be able to print it as expected.
> +	 */
> +	failed_tests += do_test(BUF_SIZE, expect, elen, fmt, ap);
> +	rand = 1 + prandom_u32_max(elen+1);
> +	/* Since elen < BUF_SIZE, we have 1 <= rand <= BUF_SIZE. */
> +	failed_tests += do_test(rand, expect, elen, fmt, ap);
> +	failed_tests += do_test(0, expect, elen, fmt, ap);
> +
> +	p = kvasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, fmt, ap);
> +	if (p) {
> +		if (memcmp(p, expect, elen+1)) {
> +			pr_warn("kvasprintf(..., \"%s\", ...) 
> returned '%s', expected '%s'\n",
> +				fmt, p, expect);
> +			failed_tests++;
> +		}
> +		kfree(p);
> +	}
> +	va_end(ap);
> +}
> +
> +#define test(expect, fmt, ...)					\
> +	__test(expect, strlen(expect), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)

Would be __test_m[em] / __test_s[tr] to distinguish them by name?

And might be inline function?

> +
> +
> +static void __init
> +test_basic(void)
> +{
> +	test("", "");
> +	test("100%", "100%%");
> +	test("xxx%yyy", "xxx%cyyy", '%');
> +	__test("xxx\0yyy", 7, "xxx%cyyy", '\0');

And such pieces will be look better

__test_str("xxx%yyy", "xxx%cyyy", '%');
__test_mem("xxx\0yyy", 7, "xxx%cyyy", '\0');

> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +test_number(void)
> +{
> +	test("0x1234abcd  ", "%#-12x", 0x1234abcd);
> +	test("  0x1234abcd", "%#12x", 0x1234abcd);
> +	test("0|001| 12|+123| 1234|-123|-1234", "%d|%03d|%3d|%+d|% 
> d|%+d|% d", 0, 1, 12, 123, 1234, -123, -1234);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +test_string(void)
> +{
> +	test("", "%s%.0s", "", "123");
> +	test("ABCD|abc|123", "%s|%.3s|%.*s", "ABCD", "abcdef", 3, 
> "123456");
> +	test("1  |  2|3  |  4|5  ", "%-3s|%3s|%-*s|%*s|%*s", "1", 
> "2", 3, "3", 3, "4", -3, "5");
> +	/*
> +	 * POSIX and C99 say that a missing precision should be
> +	 * treated as a precision of 0. However, the kernel's printf
> +	 * implementation treats this case as if the . wasn't
> +	 * present. Let's add a test case documenting the current
> +	 * behaviour; should anyone ever feel the need to follow the
> +	 * standards more closely, this can be revisited.
> +	 */
> +	test("a||", "%.s|%.0s|%.*s", "a", "b", 0, "c");
> +	test("a  |   |   ", "%-3.s|%-3.0s|%-3.*s", "a", "b", 0, 
> "c");
> +}
> +
> +
> +static void __init
> +plain(void)
> +{
> +	test(PTR1_ZEROES PTR1_STR " " PTR2_STR, "%p %p", PTR1, 
> PTR2);
> +	/*
> +	 * The field width is overloaded for some %p extensions to
> +	 * pass another piece of information. For plain pointers, 
> the
> +	 * behaviour is slightly odd: One cannot pass either the 0
> +	 * flag nor a precition to %p without gcc complaining, and 
> if
> +	 * one explicitly gives a field width, the number is no 
> longer
> +	 * zero-padded.
> +	 */
> +	test("|" PTR1_STR PTR1_SPACES "  |  " PTR1_SPACES PTR1_STR 
> "|",
> +	     "|%-*p|%*p|", PTR_WIDTH+2, PTR1, PTR_WIDTH+2, PTR1);
> +	test("|" PTR2_STR "  |  " PTR2_STR "|",
> +	     "|%-*p|%*p|", PTR_WIDTH+2, PTR2, PTR_WIDTH+2, PTR2);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Unrecognized %p extensions are treated as plain %p, but 
> the
> +	 * alphanumeric suffix is ignored (that is, does not occur 
> in
> +	 * the output.)
> +	 */
> +	test("|"PTR1_ZEROES PTR1_STR"|", "|%p0y|", PTR1);
> +	test("|"PTR2_STR"|", "|%p0y|", PTR2);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +symbol_ptr(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +kernel_ptr(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +struct_resource(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +addr(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +escaped_str(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +hex_string(void)
> +{
> +	const char buf[3] = {0xc0, 0xff, 0xee};
> +
> +	test("c0 ff ee|c0:ff:ee|c0-ff-ee|c0ffee",
> +	     "%3ph|%3phC|%3phD|%3phN", buf, buf, buf, buf);
> +	test("c0 ff ee|c0:ff:ee|c0-ff-ee|c0ffee",
> +	     "%*ph|%*phC|%*phD|%*phN", 3, buf, 3, buf, 3, buf, 3, 
> buf);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +mac(void)
> +{
> +	const u8 addr[6] = {0x2d, 0x48, 0xd6, 0xfc, 0x7a, 0x05};
> +
> +	test("2d:48:d6:fc:7a:05", "%pM", addr);
> +	test("05:7a:fc:d6:48:2d", "%pMR", addr);
> +	test("2d-48-d6-fc-7a-05", "%pMF", addr);
> +	test("2d48d6fc7a05", "%pm", addr);
> +	test("057afcd6482d", "%pmR", addr);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +ip4(void)
> +{
> +	struct sockaddr_in sa;
> +
> +	sa.sin_family = AF_INET;
> +	sa.sin_port = cpu_to_be16(12345);
> +	sa.sin_addr.s_addr = cpu_to_be32(0x7f000001);
> +
> +	test("127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1", "%pi4|%pI4", &sa.sin_addr, 
> &sa.sin_addr);
> +	test("127.000.000.001|127.0.0.1", "%piS|%pIS", &sa, &sa);
> +	sa.sin_addr.s_addr = cpu_to_be32(0x01020304);
> +	test("001.002.003.004:12345|1.2.3.4:12345", "%piSp|%pISp", 
> &sa, &sa);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +ip6(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +ip(void)
> +{
> +	ip4();
> +	ip6();
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +uuid(void)
> +{
> +	const char uuid[16] = {0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4, 0x5, 0x6, 
> 0x7,
> +			       0x8, 0x9, 0xa, 0xb, 0xc, 0xd, 0xe, 
> 0xf};
> +
> +	test("00010203-0405-0607-0809-0a0b0c0d0e0f", "%pUb", uuid);
> +	test("00010203-0405-0607-0809-0A0B0C0D0E0F", "%pUB", uuid);
> +	test("03020100-0504-0706-0809-0a0b0c0d0e0f", "%pUl", uuid);
> +	test("03020100-0504-0706-0809-0A0B0C0D0E0F", "%pUL", uuid);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +dentry(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +struct_va_format(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +struct_clk(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +bitmap(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, 20);
> +	const int primes[] = {2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19};
> +	int i;
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(bits, 20);
> +	test("00000|00000", "%20pb|%*pb", bits, 20, bits);
> +	test("|", "%20pbl|%*pbl", bits, 20, bits);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(primes); ++i)
> +		set_bit(primes[i], bits);
> +	test("a28ac|a28ac", "%20pb|%*pb", bits, 20, bits);
> +	test("2-3,5,7,11,13,17,19|2-3,5,7,11,13,17,19", 
> "%20pbl|%*pbl", bits, 20, bits);
> +
> +	bitmap_fill(bits, 20);
> +	test("fffff|fffff", "%20pb|%*pb", bits, 20, bits);
> +	test("0-19|0-19", "%20pbl|%*pbl", bits, 20, bits);
> +}
> +
> +static void __init
> +netdev_features(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +

Maybe commentary delimiter here and above where you have double empty
line.

> +static void __init
> +test_pointer(void)
> +{
> +	plain();
> +	symbol_ptr();
> +	kernel_ptr();
> +	struct_resource();
> +	addr();
> +	escaped_str();
> +	hex_string();
> +	mac();
> +	ip();
> +	uuid();
> +	dentry();
> +	struct_va_format();
> +	struct_clk();
> +	bitmap();
> +	netdev_features();
> +}
> +
> +static int __init
> +test_printf_init(void)
> +{
> +	test_buffer = kmalloc(BUF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!test_buffer)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	test_basic();
> +	test_number();
> +	test_string();
> +	test_pointer();
> +
> +	kfree(test_buffer);
> +
> +	if (failed_tests == 0)
> +		pr_info("all %u tests passed\n", total_tests);
> +	else
> +		pr_warn("failed %u out of %u tests\n", failed_tests, 
> total_tests);
> +
> +	return 0;

Do we need this module in a memory?

> +}
> +
> +module_init(test_printf_init);
> +
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

GPL or ?..


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists