On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:23 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 07:43:12PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 06:02:36PM GMT, jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add sealing test to cover mmap for
> > > Expand/shrink across sealed vmas (MAP_FIXED)
> > > Reuse the same address in !MAP_FIXED case.
> >
> > This commit message is woefully small. I told you on v1 to improve the
> > commit messages. Linus has told you to do this before.
> >
> > Please actually respond to feedback. Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 125 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> > > index e855c8ccefc3..3516389034a7 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mseal_test.c
> > > @@ -2222,6 +2222,123 @@ static void test_munmap_free_multiple_ranges(bool seal)
> > > REPORT_TEST_PASS();
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void test_seal_mmap_expand_seal_middle(bool seal)
> >
> > This test doesn't expand, doesn't do anything in the middle. It does mmap()
> > though and relates to mseal, so that's something... this is compeltely
> > misnamed and needs to be rethought.
> >
>
> OK correction - it _seals_ in the middle. The remained of the criticism remains,
> and this is rather confusing... and I continue to wonder what the purpose of
> this is?
>
It expands the size (start from ptr).
> > > +{
> > > + void *ptr;
> > > + unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
> > > + unsigned long size = 12 * page_size;
> > > + int ret;
> > > + void *ret2;
> > > + int prot;
> > > +
> > > + setup_single_address(size, &ptr);
> >
> > Please replace every single instance of this with an mmap(). There's
> > literally no reason to abstract it. And munmap() what you map.
> >
No, we need to abstract it. In addition to the mmap, it also
allocates an additional two blocks before and after the allocated
memory, to avoid auto-merging, so we can use get_vma_size.
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ptr != (void *)-1);
> >
> > Pretty sure Pedro pointed out you should be checking against MAP_FAILED
> > here. I really don't understand why the rest of your test is full of
> > mmap()'s but for some reason you choose to abstract this one call? What?
> >
> > > + /* ummap last 4 pages. */
> > > + ret = sys_munmap(ptr + 8 * page_size, 4 * page_size);
> >
> > sys_munmap()? What's wrong with munmap()?
> >
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!ret);
> >
> > Why do we not have a FAIL_TEST_IF_TRUE()? This is crazy.
> >
> > Would be nice to have something human-readable like ASSERT_EQ() or
> > ASSERT_TRUE() or ASSERT_FALSE().
> >
ASSERT_EQ and ASSERT_TURE are not recommended by the self-test. The
FAIL_TEST_IF_FAIL wrap will take care of some of the admin tasks
related to self-test infra, such as count how many tests are failing.
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 8 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> > > +
> > > + if (seal) {
> > > + ret = sys_mseal(ptr + 4 * page_size, 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!ret);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* use mmap to expand and overwrite (MAP_FIXED) */
> >
> > You don't really need to say MAP_FIXED, it's below.
> >
Adding a comment here to help reviewers.
> > > + ret2 = mmap(ptr, 12 * page_size, PROT_READ,
> > > + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
> >
> > Why read-only?
> >
> > You're not expanding you're overwriting. You're not doing anything in the
> > middle.
> >
The MAP_FIXED is overwriting. It also expands the address range
(start from ptr) from 8 to 12 pages.
> > I'm again confused about what you think you're testing here. I don't think
> > we need an arbitrary MAP_FIXED mmap() at a size larger than the overwritten
> > VMA?
> >
> > You just need a single instance of a MAP_FIXED mmap() over a sealed mmap()
> > if that's what you want.
> >
> > > + if (seal) {
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ret2 == MAP_FAILED);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(errno == EPERM);
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr + 4 * page_size, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> > > + } else
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ret2 == ptr);
> >
> > Don't do dangling else's after a big block.
> >
patch passed the checkpatch.pl for style check.
> > > +
> > > + REPORT_TEST_PASS();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void test_seal_mmap_shrink_seal_middle(bool seal)
> >
> > What's going on in the 'middle'? This test doesn't shrink, it overwrites
> > the beginning of a sealed VMA?
>
> Correction - the middle is sealed. Other points remain.
>
The mmap attempts to shrink the address range from 12 pages to 8 pages.
> > > +{
> > > + void *ptr;
> > > + unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
> > > + unsigned long size = 12 * page_size;
> > > + int ret;
> > > + void *ret2;
> > > + int prot;
> > > +
> > > + setup_single_address(size, &ptr);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ptr != (void *)-1);
> > > +
> > > + if (seal) {
> > > + ret = sys_mseal(ptr + 4 * page_size, 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!ret);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* use mmap to shrink and overwrite (MAP_FIXED) */
> >
> > What exactly are you shrinking? You're overwriting the start of the vma?
> >
> > What is this testing that is different from the previous test? This seems
> > useless honestly.
> >
Again, as above, one test is expanding, the other test is shrinking.
Please take a look at mmap parameters and steps before mmap call.
> > > + ret2 = mmap(ptr, 7 * page_size, PROT_READ,
> > > + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, -1, 0);
> > > + if (seal) {
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ret2 == MAP_FAILED);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(errno == EPERM);
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> >
> > What the hell is this comparison to magic numbers? This is
> > ridiculous. What's wrong with PROT_xxx??
> >
The PROT_xxx can't be used here.
get_vma_size doesn't return PROT_ type, i.e. the bit sequence is different.
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr + 4 * page_size, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr + 4 * page_size, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == 4 * page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> >
> > Err dude, you're doing this twice?
> >
The second get_vma_size should be (ptr + 8 * page_size)
I will update that.
> > So what are we testing here exactly? That we got a VMA split? This is
> > err... why are we asserting this?
>
> I guess, that we can't overwrite a sealed bit of a VMA at the end. But again
> this feels entirely redundant. For this kind of thing to fail would mean the
> whole VMA machinery is broken.
>
The test is testing mmap(MAP_FIXED), since it can be used to overwrite
the sealed memory range (without sealing), then there is a variant of
expand/shrink.
> >
> > > + } else
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ret2 == ptr);
> > > +
> > > + REPORT_TEST_PASS();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void test_seal_mmap_reuse_addr(bool seal)
> >
> > This is wrong, you're not reusing anything. This test is useless.
> >
The ptr is reused as a hint.
> > > +{
> > > + void *ptr;
> > > + unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
> > > + unsigned long size = page_size;
> > > + int ret;
> > > + void *ret2;
> > > + int prot;
> > > +
> > > + setup_single_address(size, &ptr);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ptr != (void *)-1);
> > > +
> > > + if (seal) {
> > > + ret = sys_mseal(ptr, size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!ret);
> >
> > We could avoid this horrid ret, ret2 naming if you just did:
> >
> > FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(sys_mseal(ptr, size));
> >
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* use mmap to change protection. */
> > > + ret2 = mmap(ptr, size, PROT_NONE,
> > > + MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
> >
> > How are you using mmap to change the protection when you're providing a
> > hint to the address to use? You're not changing any protection at all!
> >
It is necessary to add the this tests to make sure mseal is behave as
it should be, which is !MAP_FIXED case, new address will be allocated,
instead of fail of mmap()
> > You're allocating an entirely new VMA hinting that you want it near
> > ptr. Please read the man page for mmap():
> >
> > If addr is NULL, then the kernel chooses the (page-aligned) address
> > at which to create the mapping; this is the most portable method of
> > creating a new mapping. If addr is not NULL, then the kernel takes
> > it as a hint about where to place the mapping; on Linux, the kernel
> > will pick a nearby page boundary (but always above or equal to the
> > value specified by /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr) and attempt to create
> > the mapping there. If another mapping already exists there, the
> > kernel picks a new address that may or may not depend on the hint.
> > The address of the new mapping is returned as the result of the
> > call.
> >
> > > +
> > > + /* MAP_FIXED is not used, expect new addr */
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!(ret2 == MAP_FAILED));
> >
> > This is beyond horrible. You really have to add more asserts.
> >
Again assert is not recommended by self_test
> > Also you're expecting a new address here, so again, what on earth are you
> > asserting? That we can mmap()?
> >
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(ret2 != ptr);
> > > +
> > > + size = get_vma_size(ptr, &prot);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(size == page_size);
> > > + FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(prot == 0x4);
> > > +
> > > + REPORT_TEST_PASS();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > {
> > > bool test_seal = seal_support();
> > > @@ -2243,7 +2360,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > if (!get_vma_size_supported())
> > > ksft_exit_skip("get_vma_size not supported\n");
> > >
> > > - ksft_set_plan(91);
> > > + ksft_set_plan(97);
> >
> > I'm guessing this is the number of tests, but I mean this is horrible. Is
> > there not a better way of doing this?
> >
Again, this is recommended by self-test.
> > >
> > > test_seal_addseal();
> > > test_seal_unmapped_start();
> > > @@ -2357,5 +2474,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > test_munmap_free_multiple_ranges(false);
> > > test_munmap_free_multiple_ranges(true);
> > >
> > > + test_seal_mmap_expand_seal_middle(false);
> > > + test_seal_mmap_expand_seal_middle(true);
> > > + test_seal_mmap_shrink_seal_middle(false);
> > > + test_seal_mmap_shrink_seal_middle(true);
> > > + test_seal_mmap_reuse_addr(false);
> > > + test_seal_mmap_reuse_addr(true);
> > > +
> > > ksft_finished();
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.46.0.469.g59c65b2a67-goog
> > >
