linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] kmsan: introduce test_unpoison

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]

Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 12:48:07 +0200
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To: glider@...gle.com
Cc: elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	bjohannesmeyer@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] kmsan: introduce test_unpoison_memory()

From: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>

Add a regression test to ensure that kmsan_unpoison_memory() works the same
as an unpoisoning operation added by the instrumentation.

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.

Signed-off-by: Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240524232804.1984355-1-bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com/T/
[glider@...gle.com: change description, remove comment about failing test case]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
---
 mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c b/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
index 07d3a3a5a9c52..018069aba92be 100644
--- a/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
+++ b/mm/kmsan/kmsan_test.c
@@ -614,6 +614,32 @@ 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");
+
+	/* Initialize a[0] and check a[1]--a[3]. */
+	a[0] = 0;
+	kmsan_check_memory((char *)&a[1], 3);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, report_matches(&expect));
+
+	report_reset();
+
+	/* Initialize b[0] and check b[1]--b[3]. */
+	kmsan_unpoison_memory((char *)&b[0], 1);
+	kmsan_check_memory((char *)&b[1], 3);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, report_matches(&expect));
+}
+
 static struct kunit_case kmsan_test_cases[] = {
 	KUNIT_CASE(test_uninit_kmalloc),
 	KUNIT_CASE(test_init_kmalloc),
@@ -637,6 +663,7 @@ 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),
 	{},
 };
 
-- 
2.45.1.288.g0e0cd299f1-goog