On Thu Mar 28, 2024 at 2:57 AM EET, Haitao Huang wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:56:35 -0500, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Wed Mar 27, 2024 at 2:55 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 13:06 -0800, Haitao Huang wrote: > >> > The scripts rely on cgroup-tools package from libcgroup [1]. > >> > > >> > To run selftests for epc cgroup: > >> > > >> > sudo ./run_epc_cg_selftests.sh > >> > > >> > To watch misc cgroup 'current' changes during testing, run this in a > >> > separate terminal: > >> > > >> > ./watch_misc_for_tests.sh current > >> > > >> > With different cgroups, the script starts one or multiple concurrent > >> > SGX > >> > selftests, each to run one unclobbered_vdso_oversubscribed test.> Each > >> > of such test tries to load an enclave of EPC size equal to the EPC > >> > capacity available on the platform. The script checks results against > >> > the expectation set for each cgroup and reports success or failure. > >> > > >> > The script creates 3 different cgroups at the beginning with > >> > following > >> > expectations: > >> > > >> > 1) SMALL - intentionally small enough to fail the test loading an > >> > enclave of size equal to the capacity. > >> > 2) LARGE - large enough to run up to 4 concurrent tests but fail some > >> > if > >> > more than 4 concurrent tests are run. The script starts 4 expecting > >> > at > >> > least one test to pass, and then starts 5 expecting at least one test > >> > to fail. > >> > 3) LARGER - limit is the same as the capacity, large enough to run > >> > lots of > >> > concurrent tests. The script starts 8 of them and expects all pass. > >> > Then it reruns the same test with one process randomly killed and > >> > usage checked to be zero after all process exit. > >> > > >> > The script also includes a test with low mem_cg limit and LARGE > >> > sgx_epc > >> > limit to verify that the RAM used for per-cgroup reclamation is > >> > charged > >> > to a proper mem_cg. > >> > > >> > [1] https://github.com/libcgroup/libcgroup/blob/main/README > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > V7: > >> > - Added memcontrol test. > >> > > >> > V5: > >> > - Added script with automatic results checking, remove the > >> > interactive > >> > script. > >> > - The script can run independent from the series below. > >> > --- > >> > .../selftests/sgx/run_epc_cg_selftests.sh | 246 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++ > >> > .../selftests/sgx/watch_misc_for_tests.sh | 13 + > >> > 2 files changed, 259 insertions(+) > >> > create mode 100755 > >> > tools/testing/selftests/sgx/run_epc_cg_selftests.sh > >> > create mode 100755 > >> > tools/testing/selftests/sgx/watch_misc_for_tests.sh > >> > > >> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/run_epc_cg_selftests.sh > >> > b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/run_epc_cg_selftests.sh > >> > new file mode 100755 > >> > index 000000000000..e027bf39f005 > >> > --- /dev/null > >> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/sgx/run_epc_cg_selftests.sh > >> > @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@ > >> > +#!/bin/bash > >> > >> This is not portable and neither does hold in the wild. > >> > >> It does not even often hold as it is not uncommon to place bash > >> to the path /usr/bin/bash. If I recall correctly, e.g. NixOS has > >> a path that is neither of those two. > >> > >> Should be #!/usr/bin/env bash > >> > >> That is POSIX compatible form. > >> > >> Just got around trying to test this in NUC7 so looking into this in > >> more detail. > >> > >> That said can you make the script work with just "#!/usr/bin/env sh" > >> and make sure that it is busybox ash compatible? > >> > >> I don't see any necessity to make this bash only and it adds to the > >> compilation time of the image. Otherwise lot of this could be tested > >> just with qemu+bzImage+busybox(inside initramfs). > >> > >> Now you are adding fully glibc shenanigans for the sake of syntax > >> sugar. > >> > >> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> > +# Copyright(c) 2023 Intel Corporation. > >> > + > >> > +TEST_ROOT_CG=selftest > >> > +cgcreate -g misc:$TEST_ROOT_CG > >> > >> How do you know that cgcreate exists? It is used a lot in the script > >> with no check for the existence. Please fix e.g. with "command -v > >> cgreate". > >> > >> > +if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then > >> > + echo "# Please make sure cgroup-tools is installed, and misc > >> > cgroup is mounted." > >> > + exit 1 > >> > +fi > >> > >> And please do not do it this way. Also, please remove the advice for > >> "cgroups-tool". This is not meant to be debian only. Better would be > >> to e.g. point out the URL of the upstream project. > >> > >> And yeah the whole message should be based on "command -v", not like > >> this. > >> > >> > +TEST_CG_SUB1=$TEST_ROOT_CG/test1 > >> > +TEST_CG_SUB2=$TEST_ROOT_CG/test2 > >> > +# We will only set limit in test1 and run tests in test3 > >> > +TEST_CG_SUB3=$TEST_ROOT_CG/test1/test3 > >> > +TEST_CG_SUB4=$TEST_ROOT_CG/test4 > >> > + > >> > +cgcreate -g misc:$TEST_CG_SUB1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > +cgcreate -g misc:$TEST_CG_SUB2 > >> > +cgcreate -g misc:$TEST_CG_SUB3 > >> > +cgcreate -g misc:$TEST_CG_SUB4 > >> > + > >> > +# Default to V2 > >> > +CG_MISC_ROOT=/sys/fs/cgroup > >> > +CG_MEM_ROOT=/sys/fs/cgroup > >> > +CG_V1=0 > >> > +if [ ! -d "/sys/fs/cgroup/misc" ]; then > >> > + echo "# cgroup V2 is in use." > >> > +else > >> > + echo "# cgroup V1 is in use." > >> > >> Is "#" prefix a standard for kselftest? I don't know this, thus asking. > >> > >> > + CG_MISC_ROOT=/sys/fs/cgroup/misc > >> > + CG_MEM_ROOT=/sys/fs/cgroup/memory > >> > + CG_V1=1 > >> > >> Have you checked what is the indentation policy for bash scripts inside > >> kernel tree. I don't know what it is. That's why I'm asking. > >> > >> > +fi > >> > + > >> > +CAPACITY=$(grep "sgx_epc" "$CG_MISC_ROOT/misc.capacity" | awk > >> > '{print $2}') > >> > +# This is below number of VA pages needed for enclave of capacity > >> > size. So > >> > +# should fail oversubscribed cases > >> > +SMALL=$(( CAPACITY / 512 )) > >> > + > >> > +# At least load one enclave of capacity size successfully, maybe up > >> > to 4. > >> > +# But some may fail if we run more than 4 concurrent enclaves of > >> > capacity size. > >> > +LARGE=$(( SMALL * 4 )) > >> > + > >> > +# Load lots of enclaves > >> > +LARGER=$CAPACITY > >> > +echo "# Setting up limits." > >> > +echo "sgx_epc $SMALL" > $CG_MISC_ROOT/$TEST_CG_SUB1/misc.max > >> > +echo "sgx_epc $LARGE" > $CG_MISC_ROOT/$TEST_CG_SUB2/misc.max > >> > +echo "sgx_epc $LARGER" > $CG_MISC_ROOT/$TEST_CG_SUB4/misc.max > >> > + > >> > +timestamp=$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S) > >> > + > >> > +test_cmd="./test_sgx -t unclobbered_vdso_oversubscribed" > >> > + > >> > +wait_check_process_status() { > >> > + local pid=$1 > >> > + local check_for_success=$2 # If 1, check for success; > >> > + # If 0, check for failure > >> > + wait "$pid" > >> > + local status=$? > >> > + > >> > + if [[ $check_for_success -eq 1 && $status -eq 0 ]]; then > >> > + echo "# Process $pid succeeded." > >> > + return 0 > >> > + elif [[ $check_for_success -eq 0 && $status -ne 0 ]]; then > >> > + echo "# Process $pid returned failure." > >> > + return 0 > >> > + fi > >> > + return 1 > >> > +} > >> > + > >> > +wai > >> > wait_and_detect_for_any() { > >> > >> what is "any"? > >> > >> Maybe for some key functions could have short documentation what they > >> are and for what test uses them. I cannot possibly remember all of this > >> just by hints such as "this waits for Any" ;-) > >> > >> I don't think there is actual kernel guideline to engineer the script > >> to work with just ash but at least for me that would inevitably > >> increase my motivation to test this patch set more rather than less. > > > > I also wonder is cgroup-tools dependency absolutely required or could > > you just have a function that would interact with sysfs? > > I should have checked email before hit the send button for v10 :-). > > It'd be more complicated and less readable to do all the stuff without the > cgroup-tools, esp cgexec. I checked dependency, cgroup-tools only depends > on libc so I hope this would not cause too much inconvenience. As per cgroup-tools, please prove this. It makes the job for more complicated *for you* and you are making the job more complicated to every possible person in the planet running any kernel QA. I weight the latter more than the former. And it is exactly the reason why we did custom user space kselftest in the first place. Let's keep the tradition. All I can say is that kselftest is unfinished in its current form. What is "esp cgexec"? BR, Jarkko
