On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:09 AM Patricia Alfonso
<trishalfonso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > <kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Integrate KASAN into KUnit testing framework.
> > > - 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 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;
> > > };
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Oh, I see, this is not a test, but rather an ASSERT-like macro.
> > Then maybe we should use it for actual expressions that are supposed
> > to trigger KASAN errors?
> >
> > E.g. KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL(test, *(volatile int*)p);
> >
>
> This is one possible approach. I wasn't sure what would be the most
> useful. Would it be most useful to assert an error is reported on a
> function or assert an error is reported at a specific address?
I would say assert on a specific line of code/expression for locality reasons.
This will also solve the problem for tests that trigger several
reports, this way we can check that we get N reports.
> > > + *
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL(test, condition) do { \
> >
> > s/condition/expression/
> >
> > > + test->kasan_report_expected = true; \
> >
> > Check that kasan_report_expected is unset. If these are nested things
> > will break in confusing ways.
> > Or otherwise we need to restore the previous value at the end.
> >
> Good point! I think I was just unsure of where I should set this value
> and what the default should be.
>
> > > + test->kasan_report_found = false; \
> > > + condition; \
> > > + if (test->kasan_report_found == test->kasan_report_expected) { \
> >
> > We know that kasan_report_expected is true here, so we could just said:
> >
> > if (!test->kasan_report_found)
> >
> Good point! This is much more readable
>
> > > + pr_info("%d has passed", __LINE__); \
> > > + } else { \
> > > + kunit_set_failure(test); \
> > > + pr_info("%d has failed", __LINE__); \
> >
> > This needs a more readable error.
> >
> Yes, this was just a stand-in. I was wondering if you might have a
> suggestion for the best way to print this failure message? Alan
> suggested reusing the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() macro so the error message
> would look something like:
> "Expected kasan_report_expected == kasan_report_found, but
> kasan_report_expected == true
> kasan_report_found == false"
>
> What do you think of this?
I will be able to understand why the test has failed reading this error message.
A more human-friendly message may be better, but if this makes for
better consistency I am fine with this.
> > > + } \
> > > + test->kasan_report_expected = false; \
> > > + test->kasan_report_found = false; \
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * 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>
> > > +
> > > /* 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;
> >
> > I would assume we will use this for other things as well (failing
> > tests on LOCKDEP errors, WARNINGs, etc).
> > So I would call this just kunit_test and make non-dependent on KASAN right away.
> >
> Yeah, I think I just wanted to make it clear that this is only used
> for KASAN, but I believe that was before we talked about extending
> this.
>
> > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test) {
> >
> > Strictly saying, this also needs to check in_task().
> >
>
> I was not aware of in_task()... can you explain its importance to me?
>
> > > + if (current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_expected) {
> > > + current->kasan_kunit_test->kasan_report_found = true;
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > + kunit_set_failure(current->kasan_kunit_test);
> > > + }
> >
> > This chunk is duplicated 2 times. I think it will be more reasonable
> > for KASAN code to just notify KUNIT that the error has happened, and
> > then KUNIT will figure out what it means and what to do.
> >
> >
> Yeah, I think moving this to the KUnit files is best too. I would like
> to keep kunit_set_failure a static function as well.
>
>
> --
> Thank you for the comments!
>
> Patricia Alfonso
