linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 28/29] arm_mpam: Add kunit test for bitmap reset

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: <20250912143704.00001ae8@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:37:04 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, D Scott Phillips OS
	<scott@...amperecomputing.com>, <carl@...amperecomputing.com>,
	<lcherian@...vell.com>, <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>,
	<tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>, <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Jamie Iles
	<quic_jiles@...cinc.com>, Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	<peternewman@...gle.com>, <dfustini@...libre.com>, <amitsinght@...vell.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>, Koba
 Ko <kobak@...dia.com>, Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
	<fenghuay@...dia.com>, <baisheng.gao@...soc.com>, Rob Herring
	<robh@...nel.org>, Rohit Mathew <rohit.mathew@....com>, "Rafael Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi
	<lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Sudeep Holla
	<sudeep.holla@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Will
 Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 28/29] arm_mpam: Add kunit test for bitmap reset

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 20:43:08 +0000
James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:

> The bitmap reset code has been a source of bugs. Add a unit test.
> 
> This currently has to be built in, as the rest of the driver is
> builtin.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Few trivial comments inline.

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>

> ---
>  drivers/resctrl/Kconfig             | 10 +++++
>  drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c      |  4 ++
>  drivers/resctrl/test_mpam_devices.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 82 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/resctrl/test_mpam_devices.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/Kconfig b/drivers/resctrl/Kconfig
> index c30532a3a3a4..ef59b3057d5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/resctrl/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/Kconfig
> @@ -5,10 +5,20 @@ menuconfig ARM64_MPAM_DRIVER
>  	  MPAM driver for System IP, e,g. caches and memory controllers.
>  
>  if ARM64_MPAM_DRIVER
> +
>  config ARM64_MPAM_DRIVER_DEBUG
>  	bool "Enable debug messages from the MPAM driver"
>  	depends on ARM64_MPAM_DRIVER

Doing this under an if for the same isn't useful. So if you want to do this
style I'd do it before adding this earlier config option.

>  	help
>  	  Say yes here to enable debug messages from the MPAM driver.
>  
> +config MPAM_KUNIT_TEST
> +	bool "KUnit tests for MPAM driver " if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +	depends on KUNIT=y
> +	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +	help
> +	  Enable this option to run tests in the MPAM driver.
> +
> +	  If unsure, say N.
> +
>  endif

> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/test_mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/test_mpam_devices.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3e7058f7601c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/test_mpam_devices.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +// Copyright (C) 2024 Arm Ltd.
> +/* This file is intended to be included into mpam_devices.c */
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +
> +static void test_mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	char __iomem *buf = kunit_kzalloc(test, SZ_16K, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct mpam_msc fake_msc = {0};

= { }; is sufficient and what newer c specs have adopted to mean
fill everything including holes in structures with 0.  There are some
tests that ensure that behavior applies with older compilers + the options
we use for building the kernel.

> +	u32 *test_result;
> +
> +	if (!buf)
> +		return;
> +
> +	fake_msc.mapped_hwpage = buf;
> +	fake_msc.mapped_hwpage_sz = SZ_16K;
> +	cpumask_copy(&fake_msc.accessibility, cpu_possible_mask);
> +
> +	mutex_init(&fake_msc.part_sel_lock);
> +	mutex_lock(&fake_msc.part_sel_lock);

Perhaps add a comment to say this is to satisfy lock markings?
Otherwise someone might wonder why mutex_init() immediately followed
by taking the lock maskes sense.

> +
> +	test_result = (u32 *)(buf + MPAMCFG_CPBM);
> +
> +	mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(&fake_msc, MPAMCFG_CPBM, 0);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[0], 0);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[1], 0);
> +	test_result[0] = 0;
> +	test_result[1] = 0;
> +
> +	mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(&fake_msc, MPAMCFG_CPBM, 1);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[0], 1);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[1], 0);
> +	test_result[0] = 0;
> +	test_result[1] = 0;
> +
> +	mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(&fake_msc, MPAMCFG_CPBM, 16);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[0], 0xffff);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[1], 0);
> +	test_result[0] = 0;
> +	test_result[1] = 0;
> +
> +	mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(&fake_msc, MPAMCFG_CPBM, 32);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[0], 0xffffffff);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[1], 0);
> +	test_result[0] = 0;
> +	test_result[1] = 0;
> +
> +	mpam_reset_msc_bitmap(&fake_msc, MPAMCFG_CPBM, 33);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[0], 0xffffffff);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, test_result[1], 1);
> +	test_result[0] = 0;
> +	test_result[1] = 0;
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&fake_msc.part_sel_lock);
> +}