linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: added lockdep support

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:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:17:42 -0500
From:   Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org
Cc:     Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardojr@...il.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: added lockdep support

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 1:43 PM Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:37 PM Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardojr@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > KUnit tests will now fail if lockdep detects an error during a test
> > > case.
> > >
> > > The idea comes from how lib/locking-selftest [1] checks for lock errors: we
> > > first if lock debugging is turned on. If not, an error must have
> > > occurred, so we fail the test and restart lockdep for the next test case.
> > >
> > > Like the locking selftests, we also fix possible preemption count
> > > corruption from lock bugs.
>
> Sorry, just noticed: You probably want to send this to some of the
> lockdep maintainers or the maintainers of the kselftest for lockdep.
>

Thanks for the reminder. CC'ed lockdep maintainers.


> > > Depends on kunit: support failure from dynamic analysis tools [2]
> > >
> > > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7.12/source/lib/locking-selftest.c#L1137
> > >
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20200806174326.3577537-1-urielguajardojr@gmail.com/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo <urielguajardo@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/kunit/test.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > index d8189d827368..0838ececa005 100644
> > > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> > >  #include <linux/kref.h>
> > >  #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> > >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> > > +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> > > +#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> > >
> > >  #include "debugfs.h"
> > >  #include "string-stream.h"
> > > @@ -22,6 +24,26 @@ void kunit_fail_current_test(void)
> > >                 kunit_set_failure(current->kunit_test);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static inline void kunit_check_locking_bugs(struct kunit *test,
> > > +                                           unsigned long saved_preempt_count)
> > > +{
> > > +       preempt_count_set(saved_preempt_count);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > > +       if (softirq_count())
> > > +               current->softirqs_enabled = 0;
> > > +       else
> > > +               current->softirqs_enabled = 1;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > I am not entirely sure why lib/locking-selftests enables/disables
> > softirqs, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that preempt_count
> > became corrupted, and somehow softirqs became incorrectly
> > enabled/disabled as a result. The resetting of the preemption count
> > will undo the enabling/disabling accordingly. Any insight on this
> > would be appreciated!
> >
> > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)
> > > +       local_irq_disable();
> > > +       if (!debug_locks) {
> > > +               kunit_set_failure(test);
> > > +               lockdep_reset();
> > > +       }
> > > +       local_irq_enable();
> > > +#endif
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static void kunit_print_tap_version(void)
> > >  {
> > >         static bool kunit_has_printed_tap_version;
> > > @@ -289,6 +311,7 @@ static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data)
> > >         struct kunit *test = ctx->test;
> > >         struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite;
> > >         struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case;
> > > +       unsigned long saved_preempt_count = preempt_count();
> > >
> > >         current->kunit_test = test;
> > >
> > > @@ -298,7 +321,8 @@ static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data)
> > >          * thread will resume control and handle any necessary clean up.
> > >          */
> > >         kunit_run_case_internal(test, suite, test_case);
> > > -       /* This line may never be reached. */
> > > +       /* These lines may never be reached. */
> > > +       kunit_check_locking_bugs(test, saved_preempt_count);
> > >         kunit_run_case_cleanup(test, suite);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.28.0.236.gb10cc79966-goog
> > >