linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:16:35 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, wfg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-06-26 16:00:40)
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:41 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > scenario like below, but where it is a problem. There could be three
> > CPUs, or even one CPU and three threads if you want to describe the
> > extra thread scenario.
> >
> > Here's my scenario where it isn't needed:
> >
> >     CPU0                                      CPU1
> >     ----                                      ----
> >     kunit_run_test(&test)
> >                                               test_case_func()
> >                                                 ....
> >                                               [mock hardirq]
> >                                                 kunit_set_success(&test)
> >                                               [hardirq ends]
> >                                                 ...
> >                                                 complete(&test_done)
> >       wait_for_completion(&test_done)
> >       kunit_get_success(&test)
> >
> > We don't need to care about having locking here because success or
> > failure only happens in one place and it's synchronized with the
> > completion.
> 
> Here is the scenario I am concerned about:
> 
> CPU0                      CPU1                       CPU2
> ----                      ----                       ----
> kunit_run_test(&test)
>                           test_case_func()
>                             ....
>                             schedule_work(foo_func)
>                           [mock hardirq]             foo_func()
>                             ...                        ...
>                             kunit_set_success(false)   kunit_set_success(false)
>                           [hardirq ends]               ...
>                             ...
>                             complete(&test_done)
>   wait_for_completion(...)
>   kunit_get_success(&test)
> 
> In my scenario, since both CPU1 and CPU2 update the success status of
> the test simultaneously, even though they are setting it to the same
> value. If my understanding is correct, this could result in a
> write-tear on some architectures in some circumstances. I suppose we
> could just make it an atomic boolean, but I figured locking is also
> fine, and generally preferred.

This is what we have WRITE_ONCE() and READ_ONCE() for. Maybe you could
just use that in the getter and setters and remove the lock if it isn't
used for anything else.

It may also be a good idea to have a kunit_fail_test() API that fails
the test passed in with a WRITE_ONCE(false). Otherwise, the test is
assumed successful and it isn't even possible for a test to change the
state from failure to success due to a logical error because the API
isn't available. Then we don't really need to have a generic
kunit_set_success() function at all. We could have a kunit_test_failed()
function too that replaces the kunit_get_success() function. That would
read better in an if condition.

> 
> Also, to be clear, I am onboard with dropping then IRQ stuff for now.
> I am fine moving to a mutex for the time being.
> 

Ok.