[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240524232804.1984355-1-bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 01:28:04 +0200
From: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>
To: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] kmsan: introduce test_unpoison_memory()
Add a regression test to ensure that kmsan_unpoison_memory() works the same
as an unpoisoning operation added by the instrumentation. (Of course,
please correct me if I'm misunderstanding how these should work).
The test has two subtests: one that checks the instrumentation, and one
that checks kmsan_unpoison_memory(). Each subtest initializes the first
byte of a 4-byte buffer, then checks that the other 3 bytes are
uninitialized. Unfortunately, the test for kmsan_unpoison_memory() fails to
identify the 3 bytes as uninitialized (i.e., the line with the comment
"Fail: No UMR report").
As to my guess why this is happening: From kmsan_unpoison_memory(), the
backing shadow is indeed correctly overwritten in
kmsan_internal_set_shadow_origin() via `__memset(shadow_start, b, size);`.
Instead, the issue seems to stem from overwriting the backing origin, in
the following `origin_start[i] = origin;` loop; if we return before that
loop on this specific call to kmsan_unpoison_memory(), then the test
passes.
Signed-off-by: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>
---
mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c b/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
index 07d3a3a5a9c5..c3ab90df0abf 100644
--- a/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
+++ b/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
@@ -614,6 +614,30 @@ static void test_stackdepot_roundtrip(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, report_matches(&expect));
}
+/*
+ * Test case: ensure that kmsan_unpoison_memory() and the instrumentation work
+ * the same
+ */
+static void test_unpoison_memory(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ EXPECTATION_UNINIT_VALUE_FN(expect, "test_unpoison_memory");
+ volatile char a[4], b[4];
+
+ kunit_info(
+ test,
+ "unpoisoning via the instrumentation vs. kmsan_unpoison_memory() (2 UMR reports)\n");
+
+ a[0] = 0; // Initialize a[0]
+ kmsan_check_memory((char *)&a[1], 3); // Check a[1]--a[3]
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, report_matches(&expect)); // Pass: UMR report
+
+ report_reset();
+
+ kmsan_unpoison_memory((char *)&b[0], 1); // Initialize b[0]
+ kmsan_check_memory((char *)&b[1], 3); // Check b[1]--b[3]
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, report_matches(&expect)); // Fail: No UMR report
+}
+
static struct kunit_case kmsan_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(test_uninit_kmalloc),
KUNIT_CASE(test_init_kmalloc),
@@ -637,6 +661,7 @@ static struct kunit_case kmsan_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(test_memset64),
KUNIT_CASE(test_long_origin_chain),
KUNIT_CASE(test_stackdepot_roundtrip),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_unpoison_memory),
{},
};
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists