lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] KUnit: KASAN Integration
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 8:40 AM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Patricia Alfonso wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:04 AM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Patricia Alfonso wrote:
> > >
> > > > Integrate KASAN into KUnit testing framework.
> > >
> > > This is a great idea! Some comments/suggestions below...
> > >
> >
> > Thank you so much for your suggestions!
> >
>
> No problem! Extending KUnit to test things like KASAN
> is really valuable, as it shows us ways we can improve
> the framework. More below...
>
> > > > - Fail tests when KASAN reports an error that is not expected
> > > > - Use KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL to expect a KASAN error in KASAN tests
> > > > - KUnit struct added to current task to keep track of the current test
> > > > from KASAN code
> > > > - Booleans representing if a KASAN report is expected and if a KASAN
> > > > report is found added to kunit struct
> > > > - This prints "line# has passed" or "line# has failed"
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Patricia Alfonso <trishalfonso@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how best to print the failure
> > > > messages, please share!
> > > >
> > > > One issue I have found while testing this is the allocation fails in
> > > > kmalloc_pagealloc_oob_right() sometimes, but not consistently. This
> > > > does cause the test to fail on the KUnit side, as expected, but it
> > > > seems to skip all the tests before this one because the output starts
> > > > with this failure instead of with the first test, kmalloc_oob_right().
> > > >
> > > > include/kunit/test.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/sched.h | 7 ++++++-
> > > > lib/kunit/test.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > > mm/kasan/report.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 2 +-
> > > > 5 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > index 2dfb550c6723..2e388f8937f3 100644
> > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct kunit_resource;
> > > > typedef int (*kunit_resource_init_t)(struct kunit_resource *, void *);
> > > > typedef void (*kunit_resource_free_t)(struct kunit_resource *);
> > > >
> > > > +void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test);
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * struct kunit_resource - represents a *test managed resource*
> > > > * @allocation: for the user to store arbitrary data.
> > > > @@ -191,6 +193,9 @@ struct kunit {
> > > > * protect it with some type of lock.
> > > > */
> > > > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */
> > > > +
> > > > + bool kasan_report_expected;
> > > > + bool kasan_report_found;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is this needed here? You're testing something pretty
> > > specific so it seems wrong to add to the generic
> > > kunit resource unless there's a good reason. I see the
> > > code around setting these values in mm/kasan/report.c,
> > > but I wonder if we could do something more generic.
> > >
> > > How about the concept of a static resource (assuming a
> > > dynamically allocated one is out because it messes
> > > with memory allocation tests)? Something like this:
> > >
> > > #define kunit_add_static_resource(test, resource_ptr, resource_field) \
> > > do { \
> > > spin_lock(&test->lock); \
> > > (resource_ptr)->resource_field.init = NULL; \
> > > (resource_ptr)->resource_field.free = NULL; \
> > > list_add_tail(&(resource_ptr)->resource_field, \
> > > &test->resources); \
> > > spin_unlock(&test->lock); \
> > > } while (0)
> > >
> > >
> > > Within your kasan code you could then create a kasan-specific
> > > structure that embends a kunit_resource, and contains the
> > > values you need:
> > >
> > > struct kasan_report_resource {
> > > struct kunit_resource res;
> > > bool kasan_report_expected;
> > > bool kasan_report_found;
> > > };
> > >
> > > (One thing we'd need to do for such static resources is fix
> > > kunit_resource_free() to check if there's a free() function,
> > > and if not assume a static resource)
> > >
> > > If you then create an init() function associated with your
> > > kunit suite (which will be run for every case) it can do this:
> > >
> > > int kunit_kasan_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> > > {
> > > kunit_add_static_resource(test, &my_kasan_report_resource, res);
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > The above should also be used to initialize current->kasan_unit_test
> > > instead of doing that in kunit_try_run_case(). With those
> > > changes, you don't (I think) need to change anything in core
> > > kunit (assuming support for static resources).
> > >
> > > To retrieve the resource during tests or in kasan context, the
> > > method seems to be to use kunit_resource_find(). However, that
> > > requires a match function which seems a bit heavyweight for the
> > > static case. We should probably have a default "find by name"
> > > or similar function here, and add an optional "name" field
> > > to kunit resources to simplify things. Anyway here you'd
> > > use something like:
> > >
> > > kasan_report_resource = kunit_resource_find(test, matchfn,
> > > NULL, matchdata);
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any barriers to taking this sort of approach (apart
> > > from the support for static resources not being there yet)?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure. I don't have any experience with kunit resources so I
> > would have to put some more effort into understanding how this would
> > work for myself. I wonder if this might be a bit of an over
> > complicated way of eliminating an extraneous boolean... maybe we can
> > find a simpler solution for the first version of this patch and add
> > the notion of a static resource for generic use later.
> >
>
> My personal preference would be to try and learn what's needed
> by KASAN and improve the KUnit APIs so the next developer finds
> life a bit easier. More hassle for you I know, but actual use cases
> like this are invaluable for improving the API. I've sent
> out an RFC patchset which has the functionality I _think_ you
> need but I may be missing something:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/1583251361-12748-1-git-send-email-alan.maguire@oracle.com/T/#t
>
> The idea is your test can do something like this:
>
> struct kasan_data {
> bool report_expected;
> bool report_found;
> };
>
>
> my_kasan_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct kunit_resource resource;
> struct kasan_data kasan_data;
>
> ...
> // add our named resource using static resource/data
> kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource,
> "kasan_data", &kasan_data);
> ...
>
> }
Does this require the user to set up this kasan_data resource in each
KASAN test? Or can we set up the resource on the KUnit side whenever a
user writes a test that expects a KASAN failure? I've been playing
around with it and I can only seem to get it to work when I add the
resource within the test, but I could be missing something.

>
> (The NULLs in the function arguments above reflect the fact we
> don't require initialization or cleanup for such static resources)
>
> Then, in KASAN context you can look the above resource up like so:
>
> struct kunit_resource *resource;
> struct kasan_data *kasan_data;
>
> resource = kunit_find_named_resource(test, "kasan_data");
> kasan_data = resource->data;
>
> // when finished, reduce reference count on resource
> kunit_put_resource(resource);
>
> Does that work for your use case?
>
> > > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name);
> > > > @@ -941,6 +946,25 @@ do { \
> > > > ptr, \
> > > > NULL)
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL() - Causes a test failure when the expression does
> > > > + * not cause a KASAN error.
> > > > + *
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL(test, condition) do { \
> > > > + test->kasan_report_expected = true; \
> > > > + test->kasan_report_found = false; \
> > > > + condition; \
> > > > + if (test->kasan_report_found == test->kasan_report_expected) { \
> > > > + pr_info("%d has passed", __LINE__); \
> > > > + } else { \
> > > > + kunit_set_failure(test); \
> > > > + pr_info("%d has failed", __LINE__); \
> > > > + } \
> > > > + test->kasan_report_expected = false; \
> > > > + test->kasan_report_found = false; \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Feels like this belongs in test_kasan.c, and could be reworked
> > > to avoid adding test->kasan_report_[expected|found] as described
> > > above.
> >
> > You're right. Since I don't see any reason why any other tests should
> > want to expect a KASAN error, it does make sense to move this logic
> > inside test_kasan.c. If, in the future, there is a need for this
> > elsewhere, we can always move it back then.
> >
> > > Instead of having your own pass/fail logic couldn't you
> > > do this:
> > >
> > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, expected, found);
> > >
> > > ? That will set the failure state too so no need to export
> > > a separate function for that, and no need to log anything
> > > as KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() should do that for you.
> > >
> >
> > This is a great idea - I feel a little silly that I didn't think of
> > that myself! Do we think the failure message for the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ()
> > would be sufficient for KASAN developers?
> > i.e. "Expected kasan_report_expected == kasan_report_found, but
> > kasan_report_expected == true
> > kasan_report_found == false"
> >
>
> I guess the missing piece above is the line number where
> the test failure was encountered, is that the concern?
>
> > > > /**
> > > > * KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE() - Causes a test failure when the expression is not true.
> > > > * @test: The test context object.
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > > index 04278493bf15..db23d56061e7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@
> > > > #include <linux/posix-timers.h>
> > > > #include <linux/rseq.h>
> > > >
> > > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This feels like the wrong place to add this #include, and
> > > when I attempted to build to test I ran into a bunch of
> > > compilation errors; for example:
> > >
> > > CC kernel/sched/core.o
> > > In file included from ./include/linux/uaccess.h:11,
> > > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/xstate.h:5,
> > > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h:26,
> > > from ./include/linux/kasan.h:16,
> > > from ./include/linux/slab.h:136,
> > > from ./include/kunit/test.h:16,
> > > from ./include/linux/sched.h:35,
> > > from init/do_mounts.c:3:
> > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h: In function 'set_fs':
> > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:32:9: error: dereferencing pointer to
> > > incomplete type 'struct task_struct'
> > > current->thread.addr_limit = fs;
> > >
> > > (I'm testing with CONFIG_SLUB). Removing this #include
> > > resolves these errors, but then causes problems for
> > > lib/test_kasan.c. I'll dig around a bit more.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I was only testing with UML. Removing that #include fixed the
> > problem for me for both x86 and UML. Could you share more about the
> > errors you have encountered in lib/test_kasan.c?
> >
>
> I'll try this again and send details.
>
> I think broadly the issue is that if we #include kunit headers
> in the kasan headers, we end up creating all kinds of problems
> for ourselves, since the kasan headers are in turn included
> in so many places (including the kunit headers themselves, since
> kunit uses memory allocation APIs). I suspect the way forward is
> to try and ensure that we don't utilize the kunit headers in any
> of the kasan headers, but rather just include kunit headers
> in test_kasan.c, and any other kasan .c files we need KUnit APIs
> for. Not sure if that's possible, but it's likely the best way to
> go if it is.
>
> > > > /* task_struct member predeclarations (sorted alphabetically): */
> > > > struct audit_context;
> > > > struct backing_dev_info;
> > > > @@ -1178,7 +1180,10 @@ struct task_struct {
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_KASAN
> > > > unsigned int kasan_depth;
> > > > -#endif
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT
> > > > + struct kunit *kasan_kunit_test;
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT */
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_KASAN */
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > > > /* Index of current stored address in ret_stack: */
> > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > index 9242f932896c..d266b9495c67 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> > > > @@ -9,11 +9,12 @@
> > > > #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > > >
> > > > #include "string-stream.h"
> > > > #include "try-catch-impl.h"
> > > >
> > > > -static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > > > +void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
> > > > {
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -236,6 +237,10 @@ static void kunit_try_run_case(void *data)
> > > > struct kunit_suite *suite = ctx->suite;
> > > > struct kunit_case *test_case = ctx->test_case;
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KASAN
> > > > + current->kasan_kunit_test = test;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * kunit_run_case_internal may encounter a fatal error; if it does,
> > > > * abort will be called, this thread will exit, and finally the parent
> > > > diff --git a/mm/kasan/report.c b/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > index 5ef9f24f566b..5554d23799a5 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@
> > > >
> > > > #include <asm/sections.h>
> > > >
> > > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > +
> > > > #include "kasan.h"
> > > > #include "../slab.h"
> > > >
> > > > @@ -461,6 +463,15 @@ void kasan_report_invalid_free(void *object, unsigned long ip)
> > > > u8 tag = get_tag(object);
> > > >
> > > > object = reset_tag(object);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test) {
> > > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_expected) {
> > > > + current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_found = true;
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > + kunit_set_failure(current->kasan_kunit_test);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > start_report(&flags);
> > > > pr_err("BUG: KASAN: double-free or invalid-free in %pS\n", (void *)ip);
> > > > print_tags(tag, object);
> > > > @@ -481,6 +492,14 @@ void __kasan_report(unsigned long addr, size_t size, bool is_write, unsigned lon
> > > > if (likely(!report_enabled()))
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test) {
> > > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_expected) {
> > > > + current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_found = true;
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > + kunit_set_failure(current->kasan_kunit_test);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > disable_trace_on_warning();
> > > >
> > > > tagged_addr = (void *)addr;
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > > > index cc5d844ecca1..63eab18a8c34 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py
> > > > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ class LinuxSourceTree(object):
> > > > return True
> > > >
> > > > def run_kernel(self, args=[], timeout=None, build_dir=''):
> > > > - args.extend(['mem=256M'])
> > > > + args.extend(['mem=256M', 'kasan_multi_shot'])
> > > > process = self._ops.linux_bin(args, timeout, build_dir)
> > > > with open(os.path.join(build_dir, 'test.log'), 'w') as f:
> > > > for line in process.stdout:
> > >
> > > I tried applying this to the "kunit" branch of linux-kselftest, and
> > > the above failed. Which branch are you building with? Probably
> > > best to use the kunit branch I think. Thanks!
> > >
> > I believe I am on Torvalds/master. There was some debate as to which
> > branch I should be developing on when I started, but it probably makes
> > sense for me to move to the "kunit" branch.
> >
>
> I think for this case - given that we may need some new KUnit
> functionality - that would be best. Thanks!
>
> Alan
>
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.0.265.gbab2e86ba0-goog
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Thank you for all your comments!
> > Patricia Alfonso
> >



--

Patricia Alfonso
Software Engineer
trishalfonso@google.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-05 03:14    [W:0.091 / U:1.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site