Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:45 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > > > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > > > > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? > > > > > > Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", > > > what will show up in dmesg? > > > > No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again. > > Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then > all module-based tests would include a summary line? Nowadays with modprobe this is shown, is it necessary to add anything else? root@(none):/# modprobe user_copy_kunit TAP version 14 # Subtest: user_copy 1..1 random: fast init done ok 1 - user_copy_test ok 1 - user_copy root@(none):/# > > -- > Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:45 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > > > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > > > > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? > > > > > > Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", > > > what will show up in dmesg? > > > > No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again. > > Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then > all module-based tests would include a summary line? I will check what can be done.
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:29:27PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > > > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? > > > > Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", > > what will show up in dmesg? > > No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again. Would it be possible to add that behavior to the core KUnit output? Then all module-based tests would include a summary line? -- Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:12 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? > > Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", > what will show up in dmesg? No, It doesn't. I'll put the messages again.
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:19:12PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? Right, if I build this as a module and do "modprobe user_copy_kunit", what will show up in dmesg? -- Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:19 PM Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
> > > This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions,
> > > from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > * splitted patch in 3:
> > > - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem;
> > > - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled
> > > as module;
> > > - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test;
> > > * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY;
> > > * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to
> > > decrease the diff;
> > > v3:
> > > * rebased with last kunit branch
> > > * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes:
> > > 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998
> > > And these from patchwork:
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
> > > ---
> > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 --
> > > lib/Makefile| 2 +-
> > > lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +
> > > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > > rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644
> > > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
> > >
> > > If unsure, say N.
> > >
> > > -config TEST_USER_COPY
> > > - tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"
> > > - depends on m
> > > - help
> > > - This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checks
> > > - on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> > > - user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> > > - a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> > > - protections.
> > > -
> > > - If unsure, say N.
> > > -
> > > config TEST_BPF
> > > tristate "Test BPF filter functionality"
> > > depends on m && NET
> > > @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
> > >
> > > If unsure, say N.
> > >
> > > +config USER_COPY_KUNIT
> > > + tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"
> > > + depends on KUNIT
> > > + depends on m
> > > + help
> > > + This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checks
> > > + on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> > > + user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> > > + a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> > > + protections.
> > > +
> > > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please
> > > refer
> > > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> > > +
> > > + If unsure, say N.
> > > +
> > > config LIST_KUNIT_TEST
> > > tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if
> > > !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > > depends on KUNIT
> > > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> > > index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644
> > > --- a/lib/Makefile
> > > +++ b/lib/Makefile
> > > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o
> > > -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
> > > @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o
> > > # KUnit tests
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o
> > > diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > > similarity index 91%
> > > rename from lib/test_user_copy.c
> > > rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > > index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644
> > > --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c
> > > +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > +#include
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
> > > @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@
> > > ({ \
> > > int cond = (condition); \
> > > if (cond) \
> > > - pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > > +
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
> > This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions,
> > from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha
> > ---
> > v2:
> > * splitted patch in 3:
> > - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem;
> > - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled
> > as module;
> > - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test;
> > * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY;
> > * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to
> > decrease the diff;
> > v3:
> > * rebased with last kunit branch
> > * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes:
> > 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998
> > And these from patchwork:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
> > ---
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 --
> > lib/Makefile| 2 +-
> > lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +
> > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> >
> > -config TEST_USER_COPY
> > - tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"
> > - depends on m
> > - help
> > - This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checks
> > - on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> > - user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> > - a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> > - protections.
> > -
> > - If unsure, say N.
> > -
> > config TEST_BPF
> > tristate "Test BPF filter functionality"
> > depends on m && NET
> > @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
> >
> > If unsure, say N.
> >
> > +config USER_COPY_KUNIT
> > + tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"
> > + depends on KUNIT
> > + depends on m
> > + help
> > + This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checks
> > + on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> > + user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> > + a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> > + protections.
> > +
> > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
> > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> > +
> > + If unsure, say N.
> > +
> > config LIST_KUNIT_TEST
> > tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if
> > !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > depends on KUNIT
> > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> > index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644
> > --- a/lib/Makefile
> > +++ b/lib/Makefile
> > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
> > @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o
> > # KUnit tests
> > obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o
> > diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > similarity index 91%
> > rename from lib/test_user_copy.c
> > rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c
> > +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> >
> > /*
> > * Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
> > @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@
> > ({ \
> > int cond = (condition); \
> > if (cond) \
> > - pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>
> I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named
> "test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity?
> "context" or "kunit" seems better.
It will be out of the standard of the other tests in KUnit,
Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
> This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions,
> from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha
> ---
> v2:
> * splitted patch in 3:
> - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem;
> - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled
> as module;
> - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test;
> * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY;
> * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to
> decrease the diff;
> v3:
> * rebased with last kunit branch
> * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes:
> 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998
> And these from patchwork:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/
> ---
> lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 --
> lib/Makefile| 2 +-
> lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%)
>
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC
>
> If unsure, say N.
>
> -config TEST_USER_COPY
> - tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections"
> - depends on m
> - help
> - This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checks
> - on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> - user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> - a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> - protections.
> -
> - If unsure, say N.
> -
> config TEST_BPF
> tristate "Test BPF filter functionality"
> depends on m && NET
> @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST
>
> If unsure, say N.
>
> +config USER_COPY_KUNIT
> + tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections"
> + depends on KUNIT
> + depends on m
> + help
> + This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checks
> + on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic
> + user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load,
> + a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary
> + protections.
> +
> + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer
> + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/.
> +
> + If unsure, say N.
> +
> config LIST_KUNIT_TEST
> tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if
> !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> depends on KUNIT
> diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644
> --- a/lib/Makefile
> +++ b/lib/Makefile
> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
> @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o
> # KUnit tests
> obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o
> diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> similarity index 91%
> rename from lib/test_user_copy.c
> rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644
> --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c
> +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> /*
> * Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls.
> @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@
> ({ \
> int cond = (condition); \
> if (cond) \
> - pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named
"test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity?
"context" or "kunit" seems better.
> cond; \
> })
>
> @@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size)
> return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL;
> }
>
> -static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t
> size)
> +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct
