On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:06 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:10 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:57 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> > <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 12:56 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > KUnit's test-managed resources can be created in two ways:
> > > > - Using the kunit_add_resource() family of functions, which accept a
> > > > struct kunit_resource pointer, typically allocated statically or on
> > > > the stack during the test.
> > > > - Using the kunit_alloc_resource() family of functions, which allocate a
> > > > struct kunit_resource using kzalloc() behind the scenes.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these families of functions accept a 'free' function to be
> > > > called when the resource is finally disposed of.
> > > >
> > > > At present, KUnit will kfree() the resource if this 'free' function is
> > > > specified, and will not if it is NULL. However, this can lead
> > > > kunit_alloc_resource() to leak memory (if no 'free' function is passed
> > > > in), or kunit_add_resource() to incorrectly kfree() memory which was
> > > > allocated by some other means (on the stack, as part of a larger
> > > > allocation, etc), if a 'free' function is provided.
> > >
> > > Trying it with this:
> > >
> > > static void noop_free_resource(struct kunit_resource *) {}
> > >
> > > struct kunit_resource global_res;
> > >
> > > static void example_simple_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > {
> > > kunit_add_resource(test, NULL, noop_free_resource, &global_res, test);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Running then with
> > > $ run_kunit --kunitconfig=lib/kunit --arch=x86_64
> > > --build_dir=kunit_x86/ --kconfig_add=CONFIG_KASAN=y
> > >
> > > Before:
> > > BUG: KASAN: double-free or invalid-free in kunit_cleanup+0x51/0xb0
> > >
> > > After:
> > > Passes
> > >
> >
> > Phew! :-)
> > I'm glad it works.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Instead, always kfree() if the resource was allocated with
> > > > kunit_alloc_resource(), and never kfree() if it was passed into
> > > > kunit_add_resource() by the user. (If the user of kunit_add_resource()
> > > > wishes the resource be kfree()ed, they can call kfree() on the resource
> > > > from within the 'free' function.
> > > >
> > > > This is implemented by adding a 'should_free' member to
> > >
> > > nit: would `should_kfree` be a bit better?
> > > `should_free` almost sounds like "should we invoke res->free" (as
> > > nonsensical as that might be)
> > >
> >
> > I think I had it as should_kfree at some point. I agree it's a little
> > clearer. I'll rename it back.
> >
> > The other option I considered was to have a "flags" member, of which
> > SHOULD_KFREE could be one. Though I eventually decided to leave that
> > until we needed another flag.
> >
> > > > struct kunit_resource and setting it appropriately. To facilitate this,
> > > > the various resource add/alloc functions have been refactored somewhat,
> > > > making them all call a __kunit_add_resource() helper after setting the
> > > > 'should_free' member appropriately. In the process, all other functions
> > > > have been made static inline functions.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > include/kunit/test.h | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > lib/kunit/test.c | 65 +++------------------
> > > > 2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > index 00b9ff7783ab..5a3aacbadda2 100644
> > > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > > > @@ -36,11 +36,14 @@ typedef void (*kunit_resource_free_t)(struct kunit_resource *);
> > > > * struct kunit_resource - represents a *test managed resource*
> > > > * @data: for the user to store arbitrary data.
> > > > * @name: optional name
> > > > - * @free: a user supplied function to free the resource. Populated by
> > > > - * kunit_resource_alloc().
> > > > + * @free: a user supplied function to free the resource.
> > > > *
> > > > * Represents a *test managed resource*, a resource which will automatically be
> > > > - * cleaned up at the end of a test case.
> > > > + * cleaned up at the end of a test case. This cleanup is performed by the 'free'
> > > > + * function. The resource itself is allocated with kmalloc() and freed with
> > > > + * kfree() if created with kunit_alloc_{,and_get_}resource(), otherwise it must
> > > > + * be freed by the user, typically with the 'free' function, or automatically if
> > > > + * it's allocated on the stack.
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan of this complexity, but I'm not sure if we have a way
> > > around it, esp. w/ stack-allocated data.
> > >
> > The other option is to make all resources allocated with
> > kunit_alloc_resource() require a non-NULL 'free' function which calls
> > kfree() itself. This is much simpler on the KUnit side, but does put
> > some of that burden on the user (and may prevent a free() function
> > from being shared between allocated and non-allocated resources).
>
> Overall, I'm ambivalent.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure how real the user burden would be (it's
> basically 0 right now).
>
> This would only add about 6 more lines to add a kfree version:
> static void free_stack_resource(struct kunit_resource *res) { ... }
>
> static void free_heap_resource(struct kunit_resource *res)
> {
> free_stack_resource(res);
> kfree(res);
> }
>
> So far, this function is only ever used w/ non-NULL free functions
> (even in the under-review stubbing patches).
> So now would be the time to make such a change.
>
> But I'm slightly against such a change.
> It slightly complicates the "resources as storage" usecase in favor of
> simplifying the "resources as memory wranglers".
> Maybe it'd be fine if we added a helper they could use, e.g.
> void kunit_resource_default_free(struct kunit_resource *res) { kfree(res); }
> but it
I agree. I am not a fan of requiring a non-null free function. I think
the solution is better captured by splitting up the resource API, like
you suggest elsewhere as a long term solution.
In the short term, I like what you did here with the should_kfree.
> > > Perhaps this would be a bit easier to read if we tweaked it a bit like:
> > > "freed with kfree() if allocated by KUnit (via kunit_alloc..."
> > >
> > > Maybe we can drop the "or automatically, if it's allocated on the
> > > stack" as well.
> >
> > Yeah: I'm not 100% happy with that wording. I wanted to make it clear
> > that there are cases where no automatic freeing is needed, but I agree
> > it's really just making things more confusing.
> > >
> > > A bigger way to simplify: perhaps we should get rid of
> > > kunit_alloc_and_get_resource() first?
> > > It's only used in KUnit's tests for itself.
> > > They could instead use kunit_alloc_resource() +
> > > kunit_find_resource(test, kunit_resource_instance_match, data).
> > > We could even define the helper with the same name in kunit-test.c
> > > (the only place it's used).
> > >
> > > Alternatively, we could make it an internal helper and define
> > > kunit_alloc_resource() as
> > >
> > > void *kunit_alloc_resource(...)
> > > {
> > > struct kunit_resource *res = _kunit_alloc_and_get_resource(...)
> > > if (res) return res->data;
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> >
> > I was thinking about this a bit this morning, and I think we should do
> > the opposite: get rid of kunit_alloc_resource() and leave only
> > kunit_alloc_and_get_resource().
> > Then, split the resource system basically in two:
> > - The system for managing "findable" resources, whose main purpose is
> > for cases like the KASAN integration and the stub stuff where main
> > goal is tying some named bit of data to a test, and reference counting
> > it so it can safely be retrieved and used throughout the kernel if
> > need be.
> > - The simpler "free this on test exit" system, which could be as
> > simple as a kunit_defer(func, context) function built on top of the
> > former. This wouldn't need detailed tracking of reference counts, etc,
>
> Agree that there's two distinct usecases here.
> One wants a replacement for global variables (which thus need
> "finding") and the other just wants to ensure some function like
> kfree() gets called.
Agreed.
> The latter ~never need to get "found" (e.g. kunit_kmalloc() users).
> The one exception: when people use kunit_kfree() to free things early,
> which requires us to "find" these resources we otherwise wouldn't care
> about.
>
> So I don't know how we can split the API unless we get rid of kunit_kfree().
> Its presence means kunit_kmalloc() and friends need refcounting.
Do we need to choose between dropping kunit_kfree() and refcounting? I
think this is semantically different from other findable resources,
and I think it fairly obviously entails the complexity of using it.
> Can we drop it? Maybe.
> Looking at the uses of kunit_kfree(), they're all internal to kunit except one.
>
> 111 static void
> ne_misc_dev_test_merge_phys_contig_memory_regions(struct kunit *test)
> 112 {
> ...
> 117 phys_contig_mem_regions.regions = kunit_kcalloc(test,
> MAX_PHYS_REGIONS,
> 118
> sizeof(*phys_contig_mem_regions.regions),
> 119 GFP_KERNEL);
> ...
> 140
> 141 kunit_kfree(test, phys_contig_mem_regions.regions);
> 142 }
>
> Hmm, that looks redundant since it's right before the end of the test case.
> We can drop that call, I think.
>
> But I think kunit_kfree() can serve a purpose.
> E.g. for short-lived allocations where assertions are used.
> buf = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, do_stuff(buf), 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, <something about buf>);
> kunit_kfree(buf);
> // do more stuff
>
> Sure we can drop kunit_kfree() and have `buf` stick around longer than needed.
> Or we could rewrite it like
> buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (do_stuff(buf)) {
> KUNIT_FAIL(test, "do_stuff() failed");
> } else {
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, <something about buf>);
> }
> kfree(buf);
> but I think the kunit_kfree() code is cleaner.
>
> >
> > (tl;dr: I think that kunit_alloc_resource() is broken, refcount-wise,
> > if we're trying to implement the first kind of system, but useful for
> > the second, and this is quite confusing. So kunit_alloc_resource()
> > probably shouldn't be used alongside kunit_find_resource(), as there
> > could be a potential race condition. Now, this shouldn't happen in
> > practice, as most tests are single threaded and none are doing fancy
> > things with kunit_remove_resource(), but
> > kunit_alloc_and_get_resource() should be safer, as you're not playing
> > with a resource you don't have a reference to according to the
> > refcount.)
> >
> > That's a more complicated refactor and redesign of the resources
> > system, though, so I'd rather fix this first.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- David
