lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:35 AM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> On 26/04/2021 23.08, Florent Revest wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:19 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:10 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:38 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> >>> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:52 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "positive" part tests all format specifiers when things go well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "negative" part makes sure that incorrect format strings fail at
> >>>>> load time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c | 73 ++++++++++
> >>>>> .../bpf/progs/test_snprintf_single.c | 20 +++
> >>>>> 3 files changed, 218 insertions(+)
> >>>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> >>>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c
> >>>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf_single.c
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> >>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>> index 000000000000..a958c22aec75
> >>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
> >>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>>> +/* Copyright (c) 2021 Google LLC. */
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#include <test_progs.h>
> >>>>> +#include "test_snprintf.skel.h"
> >>>>> +#include "test_snprintf_single.skel.h"
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#define EXP_NUM_OUT "-8 9 96 -424242 1337 DABBAD00"
> >>>>> +#define EXP_NUM_RET sizeof(EXP_NUM_OUT)
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#define EXP_IP_OUT "127.000.000.001 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001"
> >>>>> +#define EXP_IP_RET sizeof(EXP_IP_OUT)
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +/* The third specifier, %pB, depends on compiler inlining so don't check it */
> >>>>> +#define EXP_SYM_OUT "schedule schedule+0x0/"
> >>>>> +#define MIN_SYM_RET sizeof(EXP_SYM_OUT)
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +/* The third specifier, %p, is a hashed pointer which changes on every reboot */
> >>>>> +#define EXP_ADDR_OUT "0000000000000000 ffff00000add4e55 "
> >>>>> +#define EXP_ADDR_RET sizeof(EXP_ADDR_OUT "unknownhashedptr")
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#define EXP_STR_OUT "str1 longstr"
> >>>>> +#define EXP_STR_RET sizeof(EXP_STR_OUT)
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#define EXP_OVER_OUT "%over"
> >>>>> +#define EXP_OVER_RET 10
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#define EXP_PAD_OUT " 4 000"
> >>>>
> >>>> Roughly 50% of the time I get failure for this test case:
> >>>>
> >>>> test_snprintf_positive:FAIL:pad_out unexpected pad_out: actual ' 4
> >>>> 0000' != expected ' 4 000'
> >>>>
> >>>> Re-running this test case immediately passes. Running again most
> >>>> probably fails. Please take a look.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have more information on how to reproduce this ?
> >>> I spinned up a VM at 87bd9e602 with ./vmtest -s and then run this script:
> >>>
> >>> #!/bin/sh
> >>> for i in `seq 1000`
> >>> do
> >>> ./test_progs -t snprintf
> >>> if [ $? -ne 0 ];
> >>> then
> >>> echo FAILURE
> >>> exit 1
> >>> fi
> >>> done
> >>>
> >>> The thousand executions passed.
> >>>
> >>> This is a bit concerning because your unexpected_pad_out seems to have
> >>> an extra '0' so it ends up with strlen(pad_out)=11 but
> >>> sizeof(pad_out)=10. The actual string writing is not really done by
> >>> our helper code but by the snprintf implementation (str and str_size
> >>> are only given to snprintf()) so I'd expect the truncation to work
> >>> well there. I'm a bit puzzled
> >>
> >> I'm puzzled too, have no idea. I also can't repro this with vmtest.sh.
> >> But I can quite reliably reproduce with my local ArchLinux-based qemu
> >> image with different config (see [0] for config itself). So please try
> >> with my config and see if that helps to repro. If not, I'll have to
> >> debug it on my own later.
> >>
> >> [0] https://gist.github.com/anakryiko/4b6ae21680842bdeacca8fa99d378048
> >
> > I tried that config on the same commit 87bd9e602 (bpf-next/master)
> > with my debian-based qemu image and I still can't reproduce the issue
> > :| If I can be of any help let me know, I'd be happy to help
> >
>
> It's not really clear to me if this is before or after the rewrite to
> use bprintf, but regardless, in those two patches this caught my attention:

I tried to reproduce Andrii's bug both before and after the bprintf
rewrite but I think he meant before.

> u64 args[MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS] = { arg1, arg2, arg3 };
> - enum bpf_printf_mod_type mod[MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS];
> + u32 *bin_args;
> static char buf[BPF_TRACE_PRINTK_SIZE];
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = bpf_printf_prepare(fmt, fmt_size, args, args, mod,
> - MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS);
> + ret = bpf_bprintf_prepare(fmt, fmt_size, args, &bin_args,
> + MAX_TRACE_PRINTK_VARARGS);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - ret = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(0, args, mod),
> - BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(1, args, mod), BPF_CAST_FMT_ARG(2, args, mod));
> - /* snprintf() will not append null for zero-length strings */
> - if (ret == 0)
> - buf[0] = '\0';
> + ret = bstr_printf(buf, sizeof(buf), fmt, bin_args);
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&trace_printk_lock, flags);
> trace_bpf_trace_printk(buf);
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&trace_printk_lock, flags);
>
> Why isn't the write to buf[] protected by that spinlock? Or put another
> way, what protects buf[] from concurrent writes?

You're right, that is a bug, I missed that buf was static and thought
it was just on the stack. That snprintf call should be after the
raw_spin_lock_irqsave. I'll send a patch. Thank you Rasmus. (before my
snprintf series, there was a vsprintf after the raw_spin_lock_irqsave)

> Probably the test cases are not run in parallel, but this is the kind of
> thing that would give those symptoms.

I think it's a separate issue from what Andrii reported though because
the flaky test exercises the bpf_snprintf helper and this buf spinlock
bug you just found only affects the bpf_trace_printk helper.

That being said, it does smell a little bit like a concurrency issue
too, indeed. The bpf_snprintf test program is a raw_tp/sys_enter so it
attaches to all syscall entries and most likely gets executed many
more times than necessary and probably on parallel CPUs. The "pad_out"
buffer they write to is unique and not locked so maybe the test's
userspace reads pad_out while another CPU is writing on it and if the
string output goes through a stage where it is " 4 0000" before
being " 4 000", we might read at the wrong time. That being said, I
would find it weird that this happens as much as 50% of the time and
always specifically on that test case.

Andrii could you maybe try changing the prog type to
"tp/syscalls/sys_enter_nanosleep" on the machine where you can
reproduce this bug ?

> Rasmus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-27 11:51    [W:0.117 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site