lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/2] Add selftests for pidfd polling
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 01:50:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Other than verifying pidfd based polling, the tests make sure that
> wait semantics are preserved with the pidfd poll. Notably the 2 cases:
> 1. If a thread group leader exits while threads still there, then no
> pidfd poll notifcation should happen.
> 2. If a non-thread group leader does an execve, then the thread group
> leader is signaled to exit and is replaced with the execing thread
> as the new leader, however the parent is not notified in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c | 216 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> index deaf8073bc06..4b31c14f273c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -CFLAGS += -g -I../../../../usr/include/
> +CFLAGS += -g -I../../../../usr/include/ -lpthread
>
> TEST_GEN_PROGS := pidfd_test
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> index d59378a93782..4d5206280091 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> @@ -4,18 +4,26 @@
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <pthread.h>
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <syscall.h>
> +#include <sys/epoll.h>
> +#include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <sys/mount.h>
> #include <sys/wait.h>
> +#include <time.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #include "../kselftest.h"
>
> +#define CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT 3 /* seconds */
> +#define MAX_EVENTS 5
> +#define __NR_pidfd_send_signal 424
> +
> static inline int sys_pidfd_send_signal(int pidfd, int sig, siginfo_t *info,
> unsigned int flags)
> {
> @@ -30,6 +38,22 @@ static void set_signal_received_on_sigusr1(int sig)
> signal_received = 1;
> }
>
> +static int open_pidfd(const char *test_name, pid_t pid)
> +{
> + char buf[256];
> + int pidfd;
> +
> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "/proc/%d", pid);
> + pidfd = open(buf, O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC);
> +
> + if (pidfd < 0)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg(
> + "%s test: Failed to open process file descriptor\n",
> + test_name);
> +
> + return pidfd;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Straightforward test to see whether pidfd_send_signal() works is to send
> * a signal to ourself.
> @@ -87,7 +111,6 @@ static int wait_for_pid(pid_t pid)
> static int test_pidfd_send_signal_exited_fail(void)
> {
> int pidfd, ret, saved_errno;
> - char buf[256];
> pid_t pid;
> const char *test_name = "pidfd_send_signal signal exited process";
>
> @@ -99,17 +122,10 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_exited_fail(void)
> if (pid == 0)
> _exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
>
> - snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "/proc/%d", pid);
> -
> - pidfd = open(buf, O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC);
> + pidfd = open_pidfd(test_name, pid);
>
> (void)wait_for_pid(pid);
>
> - if (pidfd < 0)
> - ksft_exit_fail_msg(
> - "%s test: Failed to open process file descriptor\n",
> - test_name);
> -
> ret = sys_pidfd_send_signal(pidfd, 0, NULL, 0);
> saved_errno = errno;
> close(pidfd);
> @@ -368,10 +384,192 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_syscall_support(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +void *test_pidfd_poll_exec_thread(void *priv)

I think you can do static here?

> +{
> + char waittime[256];
> +
> + ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: starting. pid %d tid %d ; and sleeping\n",
> + getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> + ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: doing exec of sleep\n");
> +
> + sprintf(waittime, "%d", CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT);
> + execl("/bin/sleep", "sleep", waittime, (char *)NULL);
> +
> + ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: DONE. pid %d tid %d\n",
> + getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));

You execl(), but then print stuff after that? Might also be worth
switching to execlp().

> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static int poll_pidfd(const char *test_name, int pidfd)
> +{
> + int c;
> + int epoll_fd = epoll_create1(0);

A style point, but I find it's best not to do resource allocation in
variable declarations like this. It breaks up the usual pattern of:

ret = -ENOMEM;
resource = allocate();
if (allocation_failed(resource))
goto err;

...

out:
free(resource);
err:
return ret;

You're not closing this fd on every path (they all exit [for now :D]
so it's probably ok), but it might be nice to make this match a more
regular pattern.

> + struct epoll_event event, events[MAX_EVENTS];
> +
> + if (epoll_fd == -1)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to create epoll file descriptor\n",
> + test_name);
> +
> + event.events = EPOLLIN;
> + event.data.fd = pidfd;
> +
> + if (epoll_ctl(epoll_fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, pidfd, &event)) {
> + ksft_print_msg("%s test: Failed to add epoll file descriptor: Skipping\n",
> + test_name);

Might be worth checking errno == EPERM here too (which according to
the man page is the error for "epoll not supported", which is weird
:).

> + _exit(PIDFD_SKIP);
> + }
> +
> + c = epoll_wait(epoll_fd, events, MAX_EVENTS, 5000);
> + if (c != 1 || !(events[0].events & EPOLLIN))
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Unexpected epoll_wait result (c=%d, events=%x)\n",
> + test_name, c, events[0].events);
> +
> + close(epoll_fd);
> + return events[0].events;
> +
> +}
> +
> +int test_pidfd_poll_exec(int use_waitpid)

I think this can be static too.

> +{
> + int pid, pidfd;
> + int status, ret;
> + pthread_t t1;
> + time_t prog_start = time(NULL);
> + const char *test_name = "pidfd_poll check for premature notification on child thread exec";
> +
> + ksft_print_msg("Parent: pid: %d\n", getpid());
> + pid = fork();
> + if (pid == 0) {
> + ksft_print_msg("Child: starting. pid %d tid %d\n", getpid(),
> + syscall(SYS_gettid));
> + pthread_create(&t1, NULL, test_pidfd_poll_exec_thread, NULL);
> + /*
> + * Exec in the non-leader thread will destroy the leader immediately.
> + * If the wait in the parent returns too soon, the test fails.
> + */
> + while (1)
> + ;
> + }
> +
> + ksft_print_msg("Parent: Waiting for Child (%d) to complete.\n", pid);
> +
> + if (use_waitpid) {
> + ret = waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
> + if (ret == -1)
> + ksft_print_msg("Parent: error\n");
> +
> + if (ret == pid)
> + ksft_print_msg("Parent: Child process waited for.\n");
> + } else {
> + pidfd = open_pidfd(test_name, pid);
> + if (poll_pidfd(test_name, pidfd) & EPOLLERR)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Unexpected epoll error\n", test_name);
> + }
> +
> + time_t prog_time = time(NULL) - prog_start;
> +
> + ksft_print_msg("Time waited for child: %lu\n", prog_time);
> +
> + /* Check to make sure poll_pidfd returns error after reaping */
> + if (!use_waitpid &&
> + (waitpid(pid, &status, 0) != pid || !(poll_pidfd(test_name, pidfd) & EPOLLERR))) {
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: poll_pidfd EPOLLERR check failed\n", test_name);
> + }
> + close(pidfd);
> +
> + if (prog_time < CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT || prog_time > CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT + 2)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed\n", test_name);
> + else
> + ksft_test_result_pass("%s test: Passed\n", test_name);
> +}
> +
> +void *test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit_thread(void *priv)

Another static I think?

Tycho

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-12 16:53    [W:0.236 / U:3.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site