[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/madvise: Handle zero page poisoning
Richard Palethorpe
rpalethorpe@suse.com
Wed Mar 29 15:28:58 CEST 2017
Treat failures for an un-populated MAP_PRIVATE mapping as configuration
failures because we are trying to do something which is not necessarily
expected to work. I have included some documentation for what is happening
with the zero page in this instance and what is likely to happen in the
future.
Also add a test case for MAP_PRIVATE with MAP_POPULATE, which is well defined,
and make the test slightly more verbose to help identify which variant is
running when there is an error.
Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise07.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise07.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise07.c
index 2f8c42efc..2fa553a07 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise07.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise07.c
@@ -23,9 +23,18 @@
* mark memory with MADV_HWPOISON inside child process,
* access memory,
* if SIGBUS is delivered to child the test passes else it fails
+ *
+ * When MAP_PRIVATE is set (without MAP_POPULATE) madvise() may error with
+ * EBUSY on the first attempt and succeed on the second, but without poisoning
+ * any memory. A private mapping is only populated with pages once it is
+ * accessed and poisoning an unmapped VM range is essentially undefined
+ * behaviour. However madvise() itself causes the address to be mapped to the
+ * zero page. If/when the zero page can be poisoned then the test may pass
+ * without any error. For now we just consider it a configuration failure.
*/
#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <unistd.h>
@@ -35,18 +44,24 @@
#include "tst_test.h"
#include "lapi/mmap.h"
-#define MAPTYPE(m) m == MAP_SHARED ? "MAP_SHARED" : "MAP_PRIVATE"
+#define MAPTYPE(m) (m == MAP_SHARED ? "MAP_SHARED" : \
+ (m == MAP_PRIVATE ? "MAP_PRIVATE" : \
+ "MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE"))
static int maptypes[] = {
MAP_PRIVATE,
+ MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE,
MAP_SHARED
};
static void run_child(int maptype)
{
- const size_t msize = 4096;
+ const size_t msize = getpagesize();
void *mem = NULL;
+ int first_attempt = 1;
+ tst_res(TINFO,
+ "mmap(..., MAP_ANONYMOUS | %s, ...)", MAPTYPE(maptype));
mem = SAFE_MMAP(NULL,
msize,
PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
@@ -54,22 +69,31 @@ static void run_child(int maptype)
-1,
0);
+do_madvise:
tst_res(TINFO, "madvise(%p, %zu, MADV_HWPOISON)", mem, msize);
if (madvise(mem, msize, MADV_HWPOISON) == -1) {
if (errno == EINVAL)
tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO,
"CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE probably not set in kconfig");
- else
+ else if (errno == EBUSY && maptype == MAP_PRIVATE) {
+ tst_res(TCONF,
+ "Madvise failed with EBUSY");
+ if (first_attempt--)
+ goto do_madvise;
+ } else
tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Could not poison memory");
exit(0);
}
*((char *)mem) = 'd';
- tst_res(TFAIL,
- "Did not receive SIGBUS after accessing %s memory marked "
- "with MADV_HWPOISON",
- MAPTYPE(maptype));
+ if (maptype == MAP_PRIVATE)
+ tst_res(TCONF,
+ "Zero page poisoning is probably not implemented");
+ else
+ tst_res(TFAIL,
+ "Did not receive SIGBUS after accessing %s memory marked"
+ " with MADV_HWPOISON", MAPTYPE(maptype));
}
static void run(unsigned int n)
--
2.12.0
More information about the ltp
mailing list