On 5/11/21 5:16 PM, Marco Elver wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 17:07, <glittao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Oliver Glitta <glittao@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> SLUB has resiliency_test() function which is hidden behind #ifdef >> SLUB_RESILIENCY_TEST that is not part of Kconfig, so nobody >> runs it. KUnit should be a proper replacement for it. >> >> Try changing byte in redzone after allocation and changing >> pointer to next free node, first byte, 50th byte and redzone >> byte. Check if validation finds errors. >> >> There are several differences from the original resiliency test: >> Tests create own caches with known state instead of corrupting >> shared kmalloc caches. >> >> The corruption of freepointer uses correct offset, the original >> resiliency test got broken with freepointer changes. >> >> Scratch changing random byte test, because it does not have >> meaning in this form where we need deterministic results. >> >> Add new option CONFIG_SLUB_KUNIT_TEST in Kconfig. >> Tests next_pointer, first_word and clobber_50th_byte do not run >> with KASAN option on. Because the test deliberately modifies non-allocated >> objects. >> >> Use kunit_resource to count errors in cache and silence bug reports. >> Count error whenever slab_bug() or slab_fix() is called or when >> the count of pages is wrong. >> >> Signed-off-by: Oliver Glitta <glittao@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > I think I had already reviewed v4, and the changes here are fine: > > Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Others who had reviewed/acked v4, probably need to re-ack/review. > Note, I think if you addressed the comments and didn't change much > else, you can typically carry the acks/reviews, unless the other > person changed their mind explicitly. FTR, besides me and Marco, v4 had also: Acked-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
