| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZVXFxyK8xY4mVcrS@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 08:33:27 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] selftests/nolibc: migrate startup tests to new
harness
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:08:20PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Migrate part of nolibc-test.c to the new test harness.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
A few points, mostly questions and food for thoughts.
> -static void putcharn(char c, size_t n)
> -{
> - char buf[64];
> -
> - memset(buf, c, n);
> - buf[n] = '\0';
> - fputs(buf, stdout);
> -}
> -
Ah now I see how the other one came from :-) My comment about the size
check still stands anyway, especially when placed in an include file.
> +#if defined(NOLIBC)
> +
> +#define ASSUME_NOLIBC(stmt)
> +
> +#else /* defined(NOLIBC) */
> +
> +/* differ from nolibc, both glibc and musl have no global _auxv */
> +unsigned long *_auxv = (void *)-1;
> +#define ASSUME_NOLIBC(stmt) SKIP(stmt)
> +
> +#endif /* defined(NOLIBC) */
> +
I've seen below how it's used and don't find this very clear. In general,
passing a statement as an argument to a macro, especially control statements
such as "return" is a bit difficult to grasp. If the macro is only used for
this, maybe it should integrate the return statement and be called something
like "RETURN_UNLESS_NOLIBC()" which is quite explicit this time. If you really
need to keep the statement adjustable, then most likely that calling the
macro "UNLESS_NOLIBC()" would help, because I understand more naturally
that the following will perform a return if we're not on nolibc:
UNLESS_NOLIBC(return);
than:
ASSUME_NOLIBC(return);
> - for (test = min; test >= 0 && test <= max; test++) {
> - int llen = 0; /* line length */
> + if (brk)
> + return brk;
>
> - /* avoid leaving empty lines below, this will insert holes into
> - * test numbers.
> - */
> - switch (test + __LINE__ + 1) {
> - CASE_TEST(argc); EXPECT_GE(1, test_argc, 1); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv_addr); EXPECT_PTRGT(1, test_argv, brk); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv_environ); EXPECT_PTRLT(1, test_argv, environ); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv_total); EXPECT_EQ(1, environ - test_argv - 1, test_argc ?: 1); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv0_addr); EXPECT_PTRGT(1, argv0, brk); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv0_str); EXPECT_STRNZ(1, argv0 > brk ? argv0 : NULL); break;
> - CASE_TEST(argv0_len); EXPECT_GE(1, argv0 > brk ? strlen(argv0) : 0, 1); break;
> - CASE_TEST(environ_addr); EXPECT_PTRGT(1, environ, brk); break;
> - CASE_TEST(environ_envp); EXPECT_PTREQ(1, environ, test_envp); break;
> - CASE_TEST(environ_auxv); EXPECT_PTRLT(test_auxv != (void *)-1, environ, test_auxv); break;
> - CASE_TEST(environ_total); EXPECT_GE(test_auxv != (void *)-1, (void *)test_auxv - (void *)environ - 1, env_total); break;
> - CASE_TEST(environ_HOME); EXPECT_PTRNZ(1, getenv("HOME")); break;
> - CASE_TEST(auxv_addr); EXPECT_PTRGT(test_auxv != (void *)-1, test_auxv, brk); break;
> - CASE_TEST(auxv_AT_UID); EXPECT_EQ(1, getauxval(AT_UID), getuid()); break;
> - CASE_TEST(constructor); EXPECT_EQ(1, constructor_test_value, 2); break;
> - CASE_TEST(linkage_errno); EXPECT_PTREQ(1, linkage_test_errno_addr(), &errno); break;
> - CASE_TEST(linkage_constr); EXPECT_EQ(1, linkage_test_constructor_test_value, 6); break;
> - case __LINE__:
> - return ret; /* must be last */
> - /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
> - }
> - }
> - return ret;
> + brk = sbrk(0);
> +
> + if (brk == (void *)-1)
> + brk = &end;
> +
> + return brk;
> }
>
> +TEST(startup, argc) { ASSERT_GE(test_argc, 1); }
> +TEST(startup, argv_addr) { ASSERT_GT((void *)test_argv, pbrk()); }
> +TEST(startup, argv_environ) { ASSERT_LT(test_argv, environ); }
> +TEST(startup, argv_total) { ASSERT_EQ(environ - test_argv - 1, test_argc ?: 1); }
> +TEST(startup, argv0_addr) { ASSERT_GT((void *)argv0, pbrk()); }
> +TEST(startup, argv0_str) { ASSERT_STRNZ((void *)argv0 > pbrk() ? argv0 : NULL); }
> +TEST(startup, argv0_len) { ASSERT_GE((void *)argv0 > pbrk() ? strlen(argv0) : 0U, 1U); }
> +TEST(startup, environ_addr) { ASSERT_GT((void *)environ, pbrk()); }
> +TEST(startup, environ_envp) { ASSERT_EQ(environ, test_envp); }
> +TEST(startup, environ_auxv) {
> + ASSUME_NOLIBC(return);
> + ASSERT_LT((void *)environ, (void *)_auxv);
> +}
> +TEST(startup, environ_total) {
> + ASSUME_NOLIBC(return);
> + /* kernel at least passes HOME and TERM, shell passes more */
> + ASSERT_GE((void *)_auxv - (void *)environ - 1, 2);
> +}
> +TEST(startup, environ_HOME) { ASSERT_NE(getenv("HOME"), NULL); }
> +TEST(startup, auxv_addr) {
> + ASSUME_NOLIBC(return);
> + ASSERT_GT((void *)_auxv, pbrk());
> +}
> +TEST(startup, auxv_AT_UID) { ASSERT_EQ(getauxval(AT_UID), getuid()); }
> +TEST(startup, constructor) { ASSERT_EQ(constructor_test_value, 2); }
> +TEST(startup, linkage_errno) { ASSERT_EQ(linkage_test_errno_addr(), &errno); }
> +TEST(startup, linkage_constr) { ASSERT_EQ(linkage_test_constructor_test_value, 6); }
I do appreciate the much lower indent level that still manages to
enumerate tests easily. But given that test suites are grouped, shouldn't
we go a bit further and state that TEST() operates on the suite defined
by the TEST_SUITE macro that must be defined before it ? This way you would
have:
#define TEST_SUITE startup
TEST(argc) { ASSERT_GE(test_argc, 1); }
TEST(argv_addr) { ASSERT_GT((void *)test_argv, pbrk()); }
...
#undef TEST_SUITE
One thing that was not immediately obvious to me upon first read was
if TEST() defines or executes a test (i.e. "test" is both a noun and a
verb). Of course, spending 10 more seconds on the patch makes it obvious
it's a definition, but maybe following the same logic we have with
run_test_suite(), we should place the verb in front, for example
"DEF_TEST()" which then makes it quite unambiguous. Any opinion ?
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists