linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.

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: <CAP045Aqc6woHGYKJG4d=x4gPd0=PmrLeFv25Rkts1a8xFuocOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:35:29 -0800
From: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>, 
	"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:54 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 09:55:36AM -0800, Kyle Huey wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:36 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:52 AM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
> > > > +       if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, FASYNC)) {
> > > > +               pr_debug("failed F_SETFL FASYNC %d\n", errno);
> > > > +               goto cleanup;
> > > > +       }
>
> > > Thanks for the work! The perf tool and perf test should run on older
> > > kernels ideally without failure. I'm assuming this would fail on an
> > > older kernel. Could we make the return value skip in that case?
>
> > Ah, hmm, I wasn't aware of that. This would fail on an older kernel,
> > yes. It's not possible to distinguish between an older kernel and a
> > kernel where this fix broke (at least not without hardcoding in an
> > expected good kernel version, which seems undesirable), so that would
>
> Take a look at:
>
>  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c?id=650e0bde43f35bb675e87e30f679a57cfa22e0e5
>
> To see how introspecting using BTF can be used to figure out if internal
> data structures have what is needed, or if functions with some specific
> arguments are present, etc, for sigtrap we have, in the patch above:
>
> -       TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL("unexpected sigtraps", ctx.signal_count, NUM_THREADS * ctx.iterate_on);
> +       expected_sigtraps = NUM_THREADS * ctx.iterate_on;
> +
> +       if (ctx.signal_count < expected_sigtraps && kernel_with_sleepable_spinlocks()) {
> +               pr_debug("Expected %d sigtraps, got %d, running on a kernel with sleepable spinlocks.\n",
> +                        expected_sigtraps, ctx.signal_count);
> +               pr_debug("See https://lore.kernel.org/all/e368f2c848d77fbc8d259f44e2055fe469c219cf.camel@gmx.de/\n");
> +               return TEST_SKIP;
> +       } else
> +               TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL("unexpected sigtraps", ctx.signal_count, expected_sigtraps);
>
> And then:
>
> +static bool kernel_with_sleepable_spinlocks(void)
> +{
> +       const struct btf_member *member;
> +       const struct btf_type *type;
> +       const char *type_name;
> +       int id;
> +
> +       if (!btf__available())
> +               return false;
> +
> +       id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "spinlock", BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
> +       if (id < 0)
> +               return false;
> +
> +       // Only RT has a "lock" member for "struct spinlock"
> +       member = __btf_type__find_member_by_name(id, "lock");
> +       if (member == NULL)
> +               return false;
> +
> +       // But check its type as well
> +       type = btf__type_by_id(btf, member->type);
> +       if (!type || !btf_is_struct(type))
> +               return false;
> +
> +       type_name = btf__name_by_offset(btf, type->name_off);
> +       return type_name && !strcmp(type_name, "rt_mutex_base");
> +}
>
> > mean the test would always return ok or skip, not ok or fail. Is that
> > ok?
>
> It should return:
>
> Ok if the kernel has what is needed and the test passes
> Skip if the test fails and the kernel doesn't have what is needed
> FAIL if the test fails and the kernel HAS what is needed.
>
> 'perf test sigtrap' also checks for the presence of the feature it
> requires:
>
> static bool attr_has_sigtrap(void)
> {
>         int id;
>
>         if (!btf__available()) {
>                 /* should be an old kernel */
>                 return false;
>         }
>
>         id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "perf_event_attr", BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
>         if (id < 0)
>                 return false;
>
>         return __btf_type__find_member_by_name(id, "sigtrap") != NULL;
> }
>
>         fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, -1, -1, perf_event_open_cloexec_flag());
>         if (fd < 0) {
>                 if (attr_has_sigtrap()) {
>                         pr_debug("FAILED sys_perf_event_open(): %s\n",
>                                  str_error_r(errno, sbuf, sizeof(sbuf)));
>                 } else {
>                         pr_debug("perf_event_attr doesn't have sigtrap\n");
>                         ret = TEST_SKIP;
>                 }
>                 goto out_restore_sigaction;
>         }
>
> - Arnaldo

I think perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. This seems like a
ton of work just to write a regression test. Maybe I should be doing
this in tools/testing/selftests instead?

- Kyle