On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 05:06:18PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> Add logic to test execmem_[alloc|fill|free] in test_vmalloc.c.
> No need to change tools/testing/selftests/vm/test_vmalloc.sh.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/test_vmalloc.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_vmalloc.c b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> index cf7780572f5b..6591c4932c3c 100644
> --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ __param(int, run_test_mask, INT_MAX,
> "\t\tid: 128, name: pcpu_alloc_test\n"
> "\t\tid: 256, name: kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test\n"
> "\t\tid: 512, name: kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test\n"
> + "\t\tid: 1024, name: execmem_alloc_test\n"
> /* Add a new test case description here. */
> );
>
> @@ -352,6 +353,34 @@ kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int
> +execmem_alloc_test(void)
> +{
> + void *p, *tmp;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < test_loop_count; i++) {
> + /* allocate variable size, up to 64kB */
> + size_t size = (i % 1024 + 1) * 64;
> +
> + p = execmem_alloc(size, 64);
> + if (!p)
> + return -1;
> +
> + tmp = execmem_fill(p, "a", 1);
> + if (tmp != p)
> + return -1;
> +
> + tmp = execmem_fill(p + size - 1, "b", 1);
> + if (tmp != p + size - 1)
> + return -1;
> +
> + execmem_free(p);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
This is a basic test and it is useful.
But given all those WARN_ON() and WARN_ON_ONCE() I think the real value
test here would be to race 1000 threads doing this at the same time.
>From a quick look at the test I think adding another entry into the
test_case_array with the same call again or 3 times would suffice
for a basic clash test.
Thoughts?
Luis
