[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez071wf5kvBwpmRk9QiSDzDDN7zh17zEcZjPDWKUjbqosA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 03:49:58 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, joern@...estorage.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] kfence: add test suite
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 2:17 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> Add KFENCE test suite, testing various error detection scenarios. Makes
> use of KUnit for test organization. Since KFENCE's interface to obtain
> error reports is via the console, the test verifies that KFENCE outputs
> expected reports to the console.
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c b/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
[...]
> +static void *test_alloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp, enum allocation_policy policy)
> +{
> + void *alloc;
> + unsigned long timeout, resched_after;
[...]
> + /*
> + * 100x the sample interval should be more than enough to ensure we get
> + * a KFENCE allocation eventually.
> + */
> + timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(100 * CONFIG_KFENCE_SAMPLE_INTERVAL);
> + /*
> + * Especially for non-preemption kernels, ensure the allocation-gate
> + * timer has time to catch up.
> + */
> + resched_after = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(CONFIG_KFENCE_SAMPLE_INTERVAL);
> + do {
[...]
> + if (time_after(jiffies, resched_after))
> + cond_resched();
You probably meant to recalculate resched_after after the call to
cond_resched()?
> + } while (time_before(jiffies, timeout));
> +
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE_MSG(test, false, "failed to allocate from KFENCE");
> + return NULL; /* Unreachable. */
> +}
[...]
> +/*
> + * KFENCE is unable to detect an OOB if the allocation's alignment requirements
> + * leave a gap between the object and the guard page. Specifically, an
> + * allocation of e.g. 73 bytes is aligned on 8 and 128 bytes for SLUB or SLAB
> + * respectively. Therefore it is impossible for the allocated object to adhere
> + * to either of the page boundaries.
Should this be "to the left page boundary" instead of "to either of
the page boundaries"?
> + * However, we test that an access to memory beyond the gap result in KFENCE
*results
> + * detecting an OOB access.
> + */
> +static void test_kmalloc_aligned_oob_read(struct kunit *test)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists