Message-ID: <DM4PR11MB5310FC7C28756D79BDB4E9E9EE719@DM4PR11MB5310.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 05:21:24 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Weihong" <weihong.zhang@...el.com>
To:     "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zhang, Weihong" <weihong.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv6 08/11] selftests/x86/lam: Add malloc and tag-bits test
 cases for linear-address masking



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hu, Robert <robert.hu@...el.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:17 PM
> To: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>; Dave Hansen
> <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; Lutomirski, Andy <luto@...nel.org>; Peter
> Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: x86@...nel.org; Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>; Andrey Ryabinin
> <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>; Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>;
> Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>; Taras Madan
> <tarasmadan@...gle.com>; Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>; H . J .
> Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com>; Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>; Edgecombe,
> Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>; linux-mm@...ck.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Zhang, Weihong <weihong.zhang@...el.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCHv6 08/11] selftests/x86/lam: Add malloc and tag-bits test
> cases for linear-address masking
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:18
> > To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; Lutomirski, Andy
> > <luto@...nel.org>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org; Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>; Andrey
> > Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>; Andrey Konovalov
> > <andreyknvl@...il.com>; Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>;
> Taras
> > Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>; Dmitry Vyukov
> <dvyukov@...gle.com>; H .
> > J . Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com>; Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>;
> > Edgecombe, Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>; linux-mm@...ck.org;
> > linux- kernel@...r.kernel.org; Zhang, Weihong
> <weihong.zhang@...el.com>; Kirill A .
> > Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCHv6 08/11] selftests/x86/lam: Add malloc and tag-bits
> > test cases for linear-address masking
> >
> > From: Weihong Zhang <weihong.zhang@...el.com>
> >
> > LAM is supported only in 64-bit mode and applies only addresses used
> > for data accesses. In 64-bit mode, linear address have 64 bits. LAM is
> > applied to 64-bit linear address and allow software to use high bits for
> metadata.
> > LAM supports configurations that differ regarding which pointer bits
> > are masked and can be used for metadata.
> >
> > LAM includes following mode:
> >
> >  - LAM_U57, pointer bits in positions 62:57 are masked (LAM width 6),
> >    allows bits 62:57 of a user pointer to be used as metadata.
> >
> > There are two arch_prctls:
> > ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR: enable LAM mode, mask high bits of a
> user
> > pointer.
> > ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK: get current untagged mask.
> > ARCH_GET_MAX_TAG_BITS: the maximum tag bits user can request. zero
> if
> > LAM is not supported.
> >
> > The LAM mode is for pre-process, a process has only one chance to set
> > LAM mode.
> > But there is no API to disable LAM mode. So all of test cases are run
> > under child process.
> >
> > Functions of this test:
> >
> > MALLOC
> >
> >  - LAM_U57 masks bits 57:62 of a user pointer. Process on user space
> >    can dereference such pointers.
> >
> >  - Disable LAM, dereference a pointer with metadata above 48 bit or 57 bit
> >    lead to trigger SIGSEGV.
> >
> > TAG_BITS
> >
> >  - Max tag bits of LAM_U57 is 6.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Weihong Zhang <weihong.zhang@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile |   2 +-
> >  tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c    | 317
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 318 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)  create mode 100644
> > tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> > index 0388c4d60af0..c1a16a9d4f2f 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
> > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ TARGETS_C_32BIT_ONLY := entry_from_vm86
> > test_syscall_vdso unwind_vdso \
> >  			test_FCMOV test_FCOMI test_FISTTP \
> >  			vdso_restorer
> >  TARGETS_C_64BIT_ONLY := fsgsbase sysret_rip syscall_numbering \
> > -			corrupt_xstate_header amx
> > +			corrupt_xstate_header amx lam
> >  # Some selftests require 32bit support enabled also on 64bit systems
> > TARGETS_C_32BIT_NEEDED := ldt_gdt ptrace_syscall
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4c6c6dbf7db6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include <stdio.h>
> > +#include <stdlib.h>
> > +#include <string.h>
> > +#include <sys/syscall.h>
> > +#include <time.h>
> > +#include <signal.h>
> > +#include <setjmp.h>
> > +#include <sys/mman.h>
> > +#include <sys/wait.h>
> > +#include <inttypes.h>
> > +
> > +#include "../kselftest.h"
> > +
> > +#ifndef __x86_64__
> > +# error This test is 64-bit only
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +/* LAM modes, these definitions were copied from kernel code */
> > +#define LAM_NONE                0
> > +#define LAM_U57_BITS            6
> > +/* arch prctl for LAM */
> > +#define ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK     0x4001
> > +#define ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR 0x4002
> > +#define ARCH_GET_MAX_TAG_BITS   0x4003
> > +
> > +/* Specified test function bits */
> > +#define FUNC_MALLOC             0x1
> > +#define FUNC_BITS               0x2
> > +
> > +#define TEST_MASK               0x3
> > +
> > +#define MALLOC_LEN              32
> > +
> > +struct testcases {
> > +	unsigned int later;
> > +	int expected; /* 2: SIGSEGV Error; 1: other errors */
> > +	unsigned long lam;
> > +	uint64_t addr;
> > +	int (*test_func)(struct testcases *test);
> > +	const char *msg;
> > +};
> > +
> > +int tests_cnt;
> > +jmp_buf segv_env;
> > +
> > +static void segv_handler(int sig)
> > +{
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Get segmentation fault(%d).", sig);
> > +	siglongjmp(segv_env, 1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int cpu_has_lam(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int cpuinfo[4];
> > +
> > +	__cpuid_count(0x7, 1, cpuinfo[0], cpuinfo[1], cpuinfo[2],
> > +cpuinfo[3]);
> > +
> > +	return (cpuinfo[0] & (1 << 26));
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Set tagged address and read back untag mask.
> > + * check if the untagged mask is expected.
> > + */
> > +static int set_lam(unsigned long lam) {
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +	uint64_t ptr = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (lam != LAM_U57_BITS && lam != LAM_NONE)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	/* Skip check return */
> > +	syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR, lam);
> > +
> > +	/* Get untagged mask */
> > +	syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK, &ptr);
> > +
> > +	/* Check mask returned is expected */
> > +	if (lam == LAM_U57_BITS)
> > +		ret = (ptr != ~(0x3fULL << 57));
> 
> [Hu, Robert]
> Any special reason not "bool ret"?
> 
The code didn't involve the type: bool.
error: unknown type name 'bool'

> > +	else if (lam == LAM_NONE)
> > +		ret = (ptr != -1ULL);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static unsigned long get_default_tag_bits(void) {
> > +	pid_t pid;
> > +	int lam = LAM_NONE;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	pid = fork();
> > +	if (pid < 0) {
> > +		perror("Fork failed.");
> > +		ret = 1;
> [Hu, Robert]
> In this fault case, at last you "return lam", which inited as 0, not your
> intended "ret".
> 
Yes, "ret" in here is  redundant, will be optimized.

> > +	} else if (pid == 0) {
> > +		/* Set LAM mode in parent process */
> [Hu, Robert]	
> pid == 0 is child process?
> 
> > +		if (set_lam(LAM_U57_BITS) == 0)
> > +			lam = LAM_U57_BITS;
> > +		else
> > +			lam = LAM_NONE;
> > +		exit(lam);
> > +	} else {
> > +		wait(&ret);
> > +		lam = WEXITSTATUS(ret);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return lam;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* According to LAM mode, set metadata in high bits */ static
> > +uint64_t get_metadata(uint64_t src, unsigned long lam) {
> [Hu, Robert]
> This function looks like not "get metadata", but "embed metadata" to
> canonical address.
> Naming looks confusing. Perhaps embed_metadata()?
> 
The name does not express rightly the purpose of this function. 
Will rename the function.

> > +	uint64_t metadata;
> > +
> > +	srand(time(NULL));
> > +	/* Get a random value as metadata */
> > +	metadata = rand();
> > +
> > +	switch (lam) {
> > +	case LAM_U57_BITS: /* Set metadata in bits 62:57 */
> > +		metadata = (src & ~(0x3fULL << 57)) | ((metadata & 0x3f) <<
> [Hu, Robert]
> Looks like "0x3fULL << 57" is frequently used across LAM selftests, why not
> name a macro for "0x3fULL << 57"?
> 
Add a macro for (0x3fULL << 57) and (0x7fffULL << 48)?.

> > 57);
> > +		break;
> > +	default:
> > +		metadata = src;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return metadata;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Set metadata in user pointer, compare new pointer with original
> pointer.
> > + * both pointers should point to the same address.
> > + */
> > +static int handle_lam_test(void *src, unsigned int lam) {
> > +	char *ptr;
> > +
> > +	strcpy((char *)src, "USER POINTER");
> > +
> > +	ptr = (char *)get_metadata((uint64_t)src, lam);
> > +	if (src == ptr)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/* Copy a string into the pointer with metadata */
> > +	strcpy((char *)ptr, "METADATA POINTER");
> > +
> > +	return (!!strcmp((char *)src, (char *)ptr)); }
> [Hu, Robert]
> Why "!!" here? now that function return type is int and strcmp() returns int.
> 
The " handle_lam_test" only returns 0 and 1. "!!" used to convert return of strcmp to 0 or 1.
> > +
> > +
> > +int handle_max_bits(struct testcases *test) {
> > +	unsigned long exp_bits = get_default_tag_bits();
> > +	unsigned long bits = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (exp_bits != LAM_NONE)
> > +		exp_bits = LAM_U57_BITS;
> > +
> > +	/* Get LAM max tag bits */
> > +	if (syscall(SYS_arch_prctl, ARCH_GET_MAX_TAG_BITS, &bits) == -1)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return (exp_bits != bits);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test lam feature through dereference pointer get from malloc.
> > + * @return 0: Pass test. 1: Get failure during test 2: Get SIGSEGV
> > +*/ static int handle_malloc(struct testcases *test) {
> > +	char *ptr = NULL;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (test->later == 0 && test->lam != 0)
> > +		if (set_lam(test->lam) == -1)
> > +			return 1;
> > +
> > +	ptr = (char *)malloc(MALLOC_LEN);
> > +	if (ptr == NULL) {
> > +		perror("malloc() failure\n");
> > +		return 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Set signal handler */
> > +	if (sigsetjmp(segv_env, 1) == 0) {
> > +		signal(SIGSEGV, segv_handler);
> > +		ret = handle_lam_test(ptr, test->lam);
> > +	} else {
> > +		ret = 2;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (test->later != 0 && test->lam != 0)
> > +		if (set_lam(test->lam) == -1 && ret == 0)
> > +			ret = 1;
> > +
> > +	free(ptr);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int fork_test(struct testcases *test) {
> > +	int ret, child_ret;
> > +	pid_t pid;
> > +
> > +	pid = fork();
> > +	if (pid < 0) {
> > +		perror("Fork failed.");
> > +		ret = 1;
> > +	} else if (pid == 0) {
> > +		ret = test->test_func(test);
> > +		exit(ret);
> > +	} else {
> > +		wait(&child_ret);
> > +		ret = WEXITSTATUS(child_ret);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void run_test(struct testcases *test, int count) {
> > +	int i, ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > +		struct testcases *t = test + i;
> > +
> > +		/* fork a process to run test case */
> > +		ret = fork_test(t);
> > +		if (ret != 0)
> > +			ret = (t->expected == ret);
> > +		else
> > +			ret = !(t->expected);
> > +
> > +		tests_cnt++;
> > +		ksft_test_result(ret, t->msg);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct testcases malloc_cases[] = {
> > +	{
> > +		.later = 0,
> > +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> > +		.test_func = handle_malloc,
> > +		.msg = "MALLOC: LAM_U57. Dereferencing pointer with
> > metadata\n",
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.later = 1,
> > +		.expected = 2,
> > +		.lam = LAM_U57_BITS,
> > +		.test_func = handle_malloc,
> > +		.msg = "MALLOC:[Negtive] Disable LAM. Dereferencing
> pointer
> > with metadata.\n",
> > +	},
> > +};
> > +
> > +
> > +static struct testcases bits_cases[] = {
> > +	{
> > +		.test_func = handle_max_bits,
> > +		.msg = "BITS: Check default tag bits\n",
> > +	},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void cmd_help(void)
> > +{
> > +	printf("usage: lam [-h] [-t test list]\n");
> > +	printf("\t-t test list: run tests specified in the test list,
> > +default:0x%x\n",
> > TEST_MASK);
> > +	printf("\t\t0x1:malloc; 0x2:max_bits;\n");
> > +	printf("\t-h: help\n");
> > +}
> > +
> > +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > +{
> > +	int c = 0;
> > +	unsigned int tests = TEST_MASK;
> > +
> > +	tests_cnt = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (!cpu_has_lam()) {
> > +		ksft_print_msg("Unsupported LAM feature!\n");
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "ht:")) != -1) {
> > +		switch (c) {
> > +		case 't':
> > +			tests = strtoul(optarg, NULL, 16);
> > +			if (!(tests & TEST_MASK)) {
> > +				ksft_print_msg("Invalid argument!\n");
> > +				return -1;
> > +			}
> > +			break;
> > +		case 'h':
> > +			cmd_help();
> > +			return 0;
> > +		default:
> > +			ksft_print_msg("Invalid argument\n");
> > +			return -1;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (tests & FUNC_MALLOC)
> > +		run_test(malloc_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(malloc_cases));
> > +
> > +	if (tests & FUNC_BITS)
> > +		run_test(bits_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(bits_cases));
> > +
> > +	ksft_set_plan(tests_cnt);
> > +
> > +	return ksft_exit_pass();
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.35.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists