| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 09:31:24 +0800
From: "Huang, Shaoqin" <shaoqin.huang@...el.com>
To: Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@...il.com>
CC: <rppt@...nel.org>, Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock test: Add test to memblock_add() 129th region
On 7/30/2022 1:07 PM, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 01:00:47PM -0600, shaoqin.huang@...el.com wrote:
>> From: Shaoqin Huang <shaoqin.huang@...el.com>
>>
> I tested this out, and everything is working well. I have a couple of
> suggestions for improvements.
>
>> Add 129th region into the memblock, and this will trigger the
>> memblock_double_array() function, this needs valid memory regions. So
>> using dummy_physical_memory_init() to allocate some valid memory, when
>> memblock_double_array() choose a new memory region from memory.regions,
>> it will always choose a valid memory region if we add all valid memory
>> region, so the memblock_double_array() must success.
>>
>> Another thing should be done is to restore the memory.regions after
>> memblock_double_array(), due to now the memory.regions is pointing to a
>> memory region allocated by dummy_physical_memory_init(). And it will
>> affect the subsequent tests if we don't restore the memory region. So
>> Simply record the origin region, and restore it after the test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shaoqin.huang@...el.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c | 9 ++--
>> tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h | 5 ++
>> 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
>> index 66f46f261e66..ded93f97d98e 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/basic_api.c
>> @@ -326,6 +326,70 @@ static int memblock_add_twice_check(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int memblock_add_many_check(void)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + void *base[INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1];
>> + void *orig_region;
>> + struct region r = {
>> + .base = SZ_16K,
>> + .size = MEM_SIZE,
>> + };
>> +
>> + PREFIX_PUSH();
>> +
>> + reset_memblock_regions();
>> + memblock_allow_resize();
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS; i++) {
>> + dummy_physical_memory_init();
>> + append_memblock();
>> + base[i] = memory_block.base;
>> +
>> + assert(memblock.memory.cnt == i + 1);
>
> Maybe you could call the ASSERT_EQ() macro here instead of directly
> calling assert. That way, if the test fails in verbose mode, it will print
> out the test prefix. This applies to the other asserts as well.
>
Yes, It should use the ASSERT_EQ(). Thanks for the notification.
>> + assert(memblock.memory.total_size == (i + 1) * MEM_SIZE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + orig_region = memblock.memory.regions;
>> +
>> + /* This adds the 129 memory_region, and makes it double array. */
>> + dummy_physical_memory_init();
>> + append_memblock();
>> + base[i] = memory_block.base;
>> +
>> + assert(memblock.memory.cnt == INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.total_size == (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1) * MEM_SIZE);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.max == INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2);
>> +
>> + /* The base is very small, so it should be insert to the first region. */
>> + memblock_add(r.base, r.size);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.regions[0].base == r.base);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.regions[0].size == r.size);
>> +
>> + assert(memblock.memory.cnt == INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 2);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.total_size == (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 2) * MEM_SIZE);
>> + assert(memblock.memory.max == INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 2);
>> +
>> + /* Free these allocated memory. */
>> + for (i = 0; i < INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + 1; i++) {
>> + memory_block.base = base[i];
>> + dummy_physical_memory_cleanup();
>> + }
>> +
> This could be moved to a function in common.c since it may be useful if
> we write similar tests later. For example:
>
> void dummy_physical_memory_many_cleanup(void *base[], int cnt)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> memory_block.base = base[i];
> dummy_physical_memory_cleanup();
> }
> }
>
Thanks for your advice. The another thing we should make sure at here is
the base[i] is both allocated from dummy_physical_memory_init().
> Since the other usages of memory_block in basic_api.c do not need to
> modify it, you could then replace those usages with a call to a function
> from common.c like:
>
> void *get_memory_block_base(void)
> {
> return memory_block.base;
> }
>
> to avoid adding memory_block to common.h and changing to non-static in
> common.c.
>
I will modify it.
Thanks,
Shaoqin
>> + /*
>> + * The current memory.regions is occupying a range of memory that
>> + * allocated from dummy_physical_memory_init(). After free the memory,
>> + * we must not use it. So restore the origin memory region to make sure
>> + * the tests can run as normal and not affected by the double array.
>> + */
>> + memblock.memory.regions = orig_region;
>> + memblock.memory.cnt = INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS;
>> +
>> + test_pass_pop();
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int memblock_add_checks(void)
>> {
>> prefix_reset();
>> @@ -339,6 +403,7 @@ static int memblock_add_checks(void)
>> memblock_add_overlap_bottom_check();
>> memblock_add_within_check();
>> memblock_add_twice_check();
>> + memblock_add_many_check();
>>
>> prefix_pop();
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>> index e43b2676af81..4741e860123a 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.c
>> @@ -5,12 +5,10 @@
>> #include <linux/memory_hotplug.h>
>> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
>>
>> -#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS 128
>> -#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS
>> #define PREFIXES_MAX 15
>> #define DELIM ": "
>>
>> -static struct test_memory memory_block;
>> +struct test_memory memory_block;
>> static const char __maybe_unused *prefixes[PREFIXES_MAX];
>> static int __maybe_unused nr_prefixes;
>>
>> @@ -64,6 +62,11 @@ void setup_memblock(void)
>> memblock_add((phys_addr_t)memory_block.base, MEM_SIZE);
>> }
>>
>> +void append_memblock(void)
>> +{
>> + memblock_add((phys_addr_t)memory_block.base, MEM_SIZE);
>> +}
>> +
>> void dummy_physical_memory_init(void)
>> {
>> memory_block.base = malloc(MEM_SIZE);
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
>> index 3e7f23d341d7..8946a3b77f24 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/memblock/tests/common.h
>> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
>> #include <../selftests/kselftest.h>
>>
>> #define MEM_SIZE SZ_16K
>> +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS 128
>> +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS
>>
>> /**
>> * ASSERT_EQ():
>> @@ -65,9 +67,12 @@ struct region {
>> phys_addr_t size;
>> };
>>
>> +extern struct test_memory memory_block;
>> +
>> void reset_memblock_regions(void);
>> void reset_memblock_attributes(void);
>> void setup_memblock(void);
>> +void append_memblock(void);
>> void dummy_physical_memory_init(void);
>> void dummy_physical_memory_cleanup(void);
>> void parse_args(int argc, char **argv);
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
> Thanks,
> Rebecca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists