On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:19 PM Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > It will be out of the standard of the other tests in KUnit, but I agree that > I should not use the same name "test" in the argument and in the name > of the macro. > I'll replace it with "context" instead of "test" in arg. > > > > > > 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? > > Yep, I'll fix it. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > I did it this way so I wouldn't have to test twice if I had a memory > allocation problem, > once in the "if" and once in the ASSERT, so the memory of the other > kmalloc is freed > in case of memory allocation error in this memory allocation. Hm, In this case the test needs to stop, I'll fix it. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > When you talk about end-of-test summary, is it what is written in > dmesg and not the kunit-tool? > > > > > > } > > > > > > -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 > > Thanks for the review!
