On Mon 2018-03-26 14:12:03, Joe Lawrence wrote: > On 03/26/2018 06:56 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Mon 2018-03-12 14:57:04, Joe Lawrence wrote: > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/livepatch-test b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/livepatch-test > >> new file mode 100755 > >> index 000000000000..798317bf69f6 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/livepatch-test > >> @@ -0,0 +1,658 @@ > >> +#!/bin/bash > >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> +# Copyright (C) 2018 Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> + > >> +MAX_RETRIES=30 > >> +RETRY_INTERVAL=2 # seconds > >> +BETWEEN_TESTS=20 # seconds > > > > These 20 seconds kept me in a tense (waiting for the final result) > > for a very long time ;-) Is there any particular reason for such > > a long delay? > > It certainly builds suspense :) > > > I wonder if we need a delay at all or if let's say 2 seconds might > > be enough. > > I removed the delays completely and the tests ran successfully. What > might be better than a between test delay would be some kind of > initial-condition verification, ie, make sure that the test starts/ends > with none of the livepatch test modules loaded. We could check is /sys/kernel/livepatch directory is empty. Also we could run modinfo on all modules printed by lsmod and check for the livepatch flag. > For the test cases which load multiple livepatches, is there an easy way > to determine the patch stack order from userspace? I think that would > be helpful when trying to remove all of them. I am not aware about any easy way. Only the following hacks come to my mind: One possibility would be to use the creation time of the directories under /sys/kernel/livepatch. Or I wonder if the output from lsmod is sorted by the order in which the modules were loaded. > >> +echo -n "TEST1 ... " > >> +dmesg -C > >> + > >> +load_mod $MOD_TARGET > >> +load_mod $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +wait_for_transition $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +disable_lp $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +unload_mod $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +unload_mod $MOD_TARGET > >> + > >> +check_result "% modprobe $MOD_TARGET > >> +$MOD_TARGET: livepatch_callbacks_mod_init > >> +% modprobe $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +livepatch: enabling patch '$MOD_LIVEPATCH' > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': initializing patching transition > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: pre_patch_callback: $MOD_TARGET -> [MODULE_STATE_LIVE] Normal state > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: pre_patch_callback: vmlinux > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': starting patching transition > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': completing patching transition > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: post_patch_callback: $MOD_TARGET -> [MODULE_STATE_LIVE] Normal state > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: post_patch_callback: vmlinux > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': patching complete > >> +% echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/$MOD_LIVEPATCH/enabled > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': initializing unpatching transition > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: pre_unpatch_callback: $MOD_TARGET -> [MODULE_STATE_LIVE] Normal state > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: pre_unpatch_callback: vmlinux > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': starting unpatching transition > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': completing unpatching transition > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: post_unpatch_callback: $MOD_TARGET -> [MODULE_STATE_LIVE] Normal state > >> +$MOD_LIVEPATCH: post_unpatch_callback: vmlinux > >> +livepatch: '$MOD_LIVEPATCH': unpatching complete > >> +% rmmod $MOD_LIVEPATCH > >> +% rmmod $MOD_TARGET > >> +$MOD_TARGET: livepatch_callbacks_mod_exit" > > > > I was a bit surprised when seeing this way of checking results. > > But on the other hand, it looks pretty effective, especially for > > the callbacks. And the 3rd look, any patched function might write > > something into the log when called. > > This was a quickly scripted version of what I was manually verifying > with the sample example livepatches. I don't know if it will scale, but > it was pretty easy to add tests this way. > > I wonder though if better dmesg filters will be required as the > livepatch core adds more debug msgs? Let's see. Most of the messages seem to be from the test modules itself, so it should not be that bad. > > I like it. Let's see how it works in the long term. But I am rather > > positive. > > > > Thanks a lot for working on it. > > Thanks for taking a look and running the tests. I'll make some of your > suggested changes and send it up for a proper review soon. Great. Best Regards, Petr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
