linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 4/4] selftests: vm: add a hugetlb test case

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]

Message-ID: <CAMZfGtVtU2zWYJB1U_Q4AMBb5vYysT2MC06qsA5u0T6FrpbW1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:26:01 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Chen Huang <chenhuang5@...wei.com>,
        "Bodeddula, Balasubramaniam" <bodeddub@...zon.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
        fam.zheng@...edance.com, Muchun Song <smuchun@...il.com>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 4/4] selftests: vm: add a hugetlb test case

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 1:20 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:08 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since the head vmemmap page frame associated with each HugeTLB page is
> > reused, we should hide the PG_head flag of tail struct page from the
> > user. Add a tese case to check whether it is work properly.
> >
>
> TBH, I am a bit confused. I was thinking about some kernel unit tests to make
> sure those kernel APIs touched by this patchset are still working as before.
> This userspace test, while certainly useful for checking the content of page
> frames as expected, doesn't directly prove things haven't changed.
>
> In patch 1/4, a couple of APIs have the fixup for the fake head issue.
> Do you think a test like the below would be more sensible?
> 1. alloc 2MB hugeTLB

It is done in main().

> 2. get each page frame
> 3. apply those APIs in each page frame
> 4. Those APIs work completely the same as before.

Reading the flags of a page by /proc/kpageflags is done
in stable_page_flags(), which has invoked PageHead(),
PageTail(), PageCompound() and compound_head().
If those APIs work properly, the head page must have
15 and 17 bits set. And tail pages must have 16 and 17
bits set but 15 unset.

So I think check_page_flags() has done the step 2 to 4.
What do you think?

Thanks.