[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/mmap17.c: Add new regression test

[Jan Stancek]

----- Original Message -----
> On 2018/02/07 5:15, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> The patch you referenced is x86 specific, so we can restrict the test to
> >>>> x86.
> >>>> Also please set the minimum kernel version this is expected to fail on.
> >>> 1) Before commit c64b04f, we couldn't read phys_addr_bits from
> >>> /proc/cpuinfo in 32-bit kernel on x86.
> >>> 2) On non-x86 architectures, we couldn't read phys_addr_bits from
> >>> /proc/cpuinfo as well.
> >>>
> >>> According to above reasons, i perfer to check phys_addr_bits in
> >>> /proc/cpuinfo rather than the minimum
> >>> kernel version and x86 architecture.   We can skip this test if
> >>> phys_addr_bits isn't available.
> >> I was referring to kernel patch. Does it make sense for this test
> >> to run on older kernels? Based on description it might crash, so
> >> presumably yes.
> > Though you need to be root and write to /dev/mem - which seems
> > like very rare use-case.
> >
> >> But do we also want to report FAIL on older kernels if mmap succeeds?
> >> That does not violate any docs.
> >>
> >>> addr[0] = 'a';
> >> If mmap works, this has potential of triggering signal,
> >> which will lead to TBROK.
> > older kernels with lot of DEBUG options can survive:
> >
> > # uname -r
> > 3.10.0-810.el7.x86_64.debug
> >
> > # ./mmap17
> > tst_test.c:980: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > a1
> > tst_test.c:1020: INFO: If you are running on slow machine, try exporting
> > LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL>  1
> > tst_test.c:1021: BROK: Test killed! (timeout?)
> >
> > Summary:
> > passed   0
> > failed   0
> > skipped  0
> > warnings 0
> >
> > I'd limit it to 4.14 and later - I'm assuming most people won't care
> > about this bug and we can ignore all outcomes from older kernels.
> > What do you think?
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Thanks for your comment.  :-)
> 
> With 3.10.0-830.el7.x86_64 and 2.6.32-696.el6.x86_64, this case can trigger a
> crash easily,
> so i want to run it on older kernels.  But, we can ignore all outcomes from
> older kernels
> as you said.
> 
> If an invalid physical address was refused by mmap() or didn't trigger a
> crash, can we think
> the bug didn't exist due to some protection mechanisms?

That or it corrupted different place in memory. Or somebody backported
a patch to older kernel that changes behaviour in some other way.

> 
> Please see the following code:

That should work, though it still feels to me like test for
very unusual corner-case. I'd be interested to hear what
other people think.

Regards,
Jan

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> static void verify_mmap(void)
> {
>          char *addr;
> 
>          addr = mmap(NULL, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd,
>          1ULL<<phys_addr_bits);
>          if (addr == MAP_FAILED)
>                  exit(0);
> 
>          addr[0] = 'a';
>          SAFE_MUNMAP(addr, 1);
>          exit(1);
> }
> 
> static void do_mmap(void)
> {
>          pid_t pid;
>          int status;
> 
>          pid = SAFE_FORK();
>          if (!pid)
>                  verify_mmap();
> 
>          SAFE_WAITPID(pid,&status, 0);
>          if (WIFEXITED(status)&&  !WEXITSTATUS(status))
>                  tst_res(TPASS, "Refused to map invalid physical address");
>          else
>                  tst_res(TPASS, "Mapped invalid physical address didn't
>                  trigger a crash");
> }
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks,
> Xiao Yang
> 
> > Regards,
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>