On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:46:54PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote: > This adds the conversion of the runtime tests of test_user_copy fuctions, > from `lib/test_user_copy.c`to KUnit tests. > > Signed-off-by: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: > * splitted patch in 3: > - Allows to install and load modules in root filesystem; > - Provides an userspace memory context when tests are compiled > as module; > - Convert test_user_copy to KUnit test; > * removed entry for CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY; > * replaced pr_warn to KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG in test macro to > decrease the diff; > v3: > * rebased with last kunit branch > * Please apply this commit from kunit-fixes: > 3f37d14b8a3152441f36b6bc74000996679f0998 > And these from patchwork: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676331/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11676335/ > --- > lib/Kconfig.debug | 28 ++++++++------ > lib/Makefile | 2 +- > lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} | 42 +++++++++------------ > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > rename lib/{test_user_copy.c => user_copy_kunit.c} (91%) > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index 9ad9210d70a1..f699a3624ae7 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -2078,18 +2078,6 @@ config TEST_VMALLOC > > If unsure, say N. > > -config TEST_USER_COPY > - tristate "Test user/kernel boundary protections" > - depends on m > - help > - This builds the "test_user_copy" module that runs sanity checks > - on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic > - user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load, > - a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary > - protections. > - > - If unsure, say N. > - > config TEST_BPF > tristate "Test BPF filter functionality" > depends on m && NET > @@ -2154,6 +2142,22 @@ config SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST > > If unsure, say N. > > +config USER_COPY_KUNIT > + tristate "KUnit Test for user/kernel boundary protections" > + depends on KUNIT > + depends on m > + help > + This builds the "user_copy_kunit" module that runs sanity checks > + on the copy_to/from_user infrastructure, making sure basic > + user/kernel boundary testing is working. If it fails to load, > + a regression has been detected in the user/kernel memory boundary > + protections. > + > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/. > + > + If unsure, say N. > + > config LIST_KUNIT_TEST > tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Linked-list structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > depends on KUNIT > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile > index b1c42c10073b..8c145f85accc 100644 > --- a/lib/Makefile > +++ b/lib/Makefile > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_VMALLOC) += test_vmalloc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OVERFLOW) += test_overflow.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_RHASHTABLE) += test_rhashtable.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_SORT) += test_sort.o > -obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_USER_COPY) += test_user_copy.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_keys.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o > obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o > @@ -318,3 +317,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OBJAGG) += objagg.o > # KUnit tests > obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o > obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_USER_COPY_KUNIT) += user_copy_kunit.o > diff --git a/lib/test_user_copy.c b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c > similarity index 91% > rename from lib/test_user_copy.c > rename to lib/user_copy_kunit.c > index 5ff04d8fe971..a10ddd15b4cd 100644 > --- a/lib/test_user_copy.c > +++ b/lib/user_copy_kunit.c > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > +#include <kunit/test.h> > > /* > * Several 32-bit architectures support 64-bit {get,put}_user() calls. > @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ > ({ \ > int cond = (condition); \ > if (cond) \ > - pr_warn("[%d] " msg "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, cond, msg, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ I'm surprised any of this compiles with both a macro and arg named "test". :) Can you change the arg to something with more clarity? "context" or "kunit" seems better. > cond; \ > }) > > @@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ static bool is_zeroed(void *from, size_t size) > return memchr_inv(from, 0x0, size) == NULL; > } > > -static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) > +static int test_check_nonzero_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) > { > int ret = 0; > size_t start, end, i, zero_start, zero_end; > @@ -102,7 +103,7 @@ static int test_check_nonzero_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, size_t size) > return ret; > } > > -static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, > +static int test_copy_struct_from_user(struct kunit *test, char *kmem, char __user *umem, > size_t size) > { > int ret = 0; > @@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ static int test_copy_struct_from_user(char *kmem, char __user *umem, > return ret; > } > > -static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) > +static void user_copy_test(struct kunit *test) > { > int ret = 0; > char *kmem; > @@ -192,16 +193,14 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) > #endif > > kmem = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!kmem) > - return -ENOMEM; > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, kmem == NULL, "kmalloc failed"); This would need to be an ASSERT, yes? > > user_addr = vm_mmap(NULL, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2, > PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, > MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0); > if (user_addr >= (unsigned long)(TASK_SIZE)) { > - pr_warn("Failed to allocate user memory\n"); > kfree(kmem); > - return -ENOMEM; > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate user memory"); > } Why FAIL instead of ASSERT? > > usermem = (char __user *)user_addr; > @@ -245,9 +244,9 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) > #undef test_legit > > /* Test usage of check_nonzero_user(). */ > - ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); > + ret |= test_check_nonzero_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); > /* Test usage of copy_struct_from_user(). */ > - ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); > + ret |= test_copy_struct_from_user(test, kmem, usermem, 2 * PAGE_SIZE); > > /* > * Invalid usage: none of these copies should succeed. > @@ -309,23 +308,18 @@ static int __init test_user_copy_init(void) > > vm_munmap(user_addr, PAGE_SIZE * 2); > kfree(kmem); > - > - if (ret == 0) { > - pr_info("tests passed.\n"); > - return 0; > - } > - > - return -EINVAL; Does KUnit provide a end-of-test summary now? > } > > -module_init(test_user_copy_init); > - > -static void __exit test_user_copy_exit(void) > -{ > - pr_info("unloaded.\n"); > -} > +static struct kunit_case user_copy_test_cases[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(user_copy_test), > + {} > +}; > > -module_exit(test_user_copy_exit); > +static struct kunit_suite user_copy_test_suite = { > + .name = "user_copy", > + .test_cases = user_copy_test_cases, > +}; > > +kunit_test_suites(&user_copy_test_suite); > MODULE_AUTHOR("Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>"); > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > base-commit: d43c7fb05765152d4d4a39a8ef957c4ea14d8847 > -- > 2.26.2 > Otherwise, yes, looking good. -- Kees Cook
