[LTP] [PATCH 04/13] Hugetlb: Migrating libhugetlbfs mprotect

Li Wang liwang@redhat.com
Tue Dec 27 06:48:46 CET 2022


Hi Tarun,

This test itself is no problem but looks a bit messy in code organization.
At least we need to do some refactored work to improve the readability and
reduce the (long-term) maintenance workload.


Tarun Sahu <tsahu@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

Migrating the libhugetlbfs/testcases/mprotect.c test
>
> Test Description: This test uses mprotect to change protection of
> hugepage mapping and perform read/write operation. It checks if the
> operation results in expected behaviour as per the protection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Sahu <tsahu@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  runtest/hugetlb                               |   1 +
>  testcases/kernel/mem/.gitignore               |   1 +
>  .../kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23.c  | 244 ++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 246 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23.c
>
> diff --git a/runtest/hugetlb b/runtest/hugetlb
> index 8e80db140..8ade3c9ec 100644
> --- a/runtest/hugetlb
> +++ b/runtest/hugetlb
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ hugemmap19 hugemmap19
>  hugemmap20 hugemmap20
>  hugemmap21 hugemmap21
>  hugemmap22 hugemmap22
> +hugemmap23 hugemmap23
>  hugemmap05_1 hugemmap05 -m
>  hugemmap05_2 hugemmap05 -s
>  hugemmap05_3 hugemmap05 -s -m
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/.gitignore
> b/testcases/kernel/mem/.gitignore
> index 0fd01dbce..ffd831f2e 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/mem/.gitignore
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/.gitignore
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>  /hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap20
>  /hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap21
>  /hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap22
> +/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23
>  /hugetlb/hugeshmat/hugeshmat01
>  /hugetlb/hugeshmat/hugeshmat02
>  /hugetlb/hugeshmat/hugeshmat03
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23.c
> b/testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..687b192ae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/hugemmap/hugemmap23.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.1-or-later
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2005-2006 IBM Corporation.
> + * Author: David Gibson & Adam Litke
> + */
> +
> +/*\
> + * [Description]
> + *
> + * This test uses mprotect to change protection of hugepage mapping and
> + * perform read/write operation. It checks if the operation results in
> + * expected behaviour as per the protection.
> + */
> +
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <sys/mount.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +#include <sys/mman.h>
> +#include <setjmp.h>
> +#include <signal.h>
> +
> +#include "hugetlb.h"
> +
> +#ifndef barrier
> +# ifdef mb
> +       /* Redefining the mb() */
> +#   define barrier() mb()
> +# else
> +#   define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
> +# endif
> +#endif
> +
> +#define MNTPOINT "hugetlbfs/"
> +#define RANDOM_CONSTANT        0x1234ABCD
>

Avoid mixing tab and spaces in the macro definition.



> +
> +static int  fd = -1;
>

^ one space is enough.



> +static sigjmp_buf sig_escape;
> +static void *sig_expected = MAP_FAILED;
> +static long hpage_size;
> +
> +static void sig_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *si, void *uc)
> +{
> +       (void)uc;
> +       if (signum == SIGSEGV) {
> +               tst_res(TINFO, "SIGSEGV at %p (sig_expected=%p)",
> si->si_addr,
> +                      sig_expected);
> +               if (si->si_addr == sig_expected)
> +                       siglongjmp(sig_escape, 1);
> +               tst_res(TFAIL, "SIGSEGV somewhere unexpected");
> +       } else
> +               tst_res(TFAIL, "Unexpected signal %s", strsignal(signum));
> +}
> +
> +static int test_read(void *p)
> +{
> +       volatile unsigned long *pl = p;
> +       unsigned long x;
> +
> +       if (sigsetjmp(sig_escape, 1)) {
> +               /* We got a SEGV */
> +               sig_expected = MAP_FAILED;
> +               return -1;
> +       }
> +
> +       sig_expected = p;
> +       barrier();
> +       x = *pl;
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "Read back %lu", x);
> +       barrier();
> +       sig_expected = MAP_FAILED;
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int test_write(void *p, unsigned long val)
> +{
> +       volatile unsigned long *pl = p;
> +       unsigned long x;
> +
> +       if (sigsetjmp(sig_escape, 1)) {
> +               /* We got a SEGV */
> +               sig_expected = MAP_FAILED;
> +               return -1;
> +       }
> +
> +       sig_expected = p;
> +       barrier();
> +       *pl = val;
> +       x = *pl;
> +       barrier();
> +       sig_expected = MAP_FAILED;
> +
> +       return (x != val);
> +}
> +
> +static int test_prot(void *p, int prot, char *prot_str)
> +{
> +       int r, w;
> +
> +       r = test_read(p);
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "On Read: %d", r);
> +       w = test_write(p, RANDOM_CONSTANT);
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "On Write: %d", w);
> +
> +       if (prot & PROT_READ) {
> +               if (r != 0) {
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "read failed on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               }
> +
> +       } else {
> +               if (r != -1) {
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "read succeeded on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       if (prot & PROT_WRITE) {
> +               switch (w) {
> +               case -1:
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "write failed on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               case 0:
> +                       break;
> +               case 1:
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "write mismatch on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               default:
> +                       tst_res(TWARN, "Bug in test");
> +                       return -1;
> +               }
> +       } else {
> +               switch (w) {
> +               case -1:
> +                       break;
> +               case 0:
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "write succeeded on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               case 1:
> +                       tst_res(TFAIL, "write mismatch on mmap(prot %s)",
> prot_str);
> +                       return -1;
> +               default:
> +                       tst_res(TWARN, "Bug in test");
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int test_mprotect(int fd, char *testname,
> +                         unsigned long len1, int prot1, char *prot1_str,
> +                         unsigned long len2, int prot2, char *prot2_str)
> +{
> +       void *p;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "Testing %s", testname);
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "Mapping with prot %s", prot1_str);
> +       p = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, len1, prot1, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> +
> +       ret = test_prot(p, prot1, prot1_str);
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       tst_res(TINFO, "mprotect()ing to prot %s", prot2_str);
> +       ret = mprotect(p, len2, prot2);
> +       if (ret != 0) {
> +               tst_res(TFAIL|TERRNO, "%s: mprotect(prot %s)", testname,
> prot2_str);
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = test_prot(p, prot2, prot2_str);
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       if (len2 < len1)
> +               ret = test_prot(p + len2, prot1, prot1_str);
> +
> +cleanup:
> +       SAFE_MUNMAP(p, len1);
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void run_test(void)
> +{
> +       void *p;
> +
>


> +       struct sigaction sa = {
> +               .sa_sigaction = sig_handler,
> +               .sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO,
> +       };
> +
> +       SAFE_SIGACTION(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL);
> +
> +       fd = tst_creat_unlinked(MNTPOINT, 0);
> +       p = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, 2*hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> +       memset(p, 0, hpage_size);
> +       SAFE_MUNMAP(p, hpage_size);
>

I guess moving those preparation work into setup() is better.


> +
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "R->RW", hpage_size, PROT_READ, "PROT_READ",
> +                     hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "RW->R", hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> +                    "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE", hpage_size, PROT_READ,
> "PROT_READ"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "R->RW 1/2", 2*hpage_size, PROT_READ,
> "PROT_READ",
> +                     hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "RW->R 1/2", 2*hpage_size,
> PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> +                     "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE", hpage_size, PROT_READ,
> "PROT_READ"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "NONE->R", hpage_size, PROT_NONE,
> "PROT_NONE",
> +                     hpage_size, PROT_READ, "PROT_READ"))
> +               goto cleanup;
> +       if (test_mprotect(fd, "NONE->RW", hpage_size, PROT_NONE,
> "PROT_NONE",
> +                     hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"))
> +               goto cleanup;
>

Can we reorg those test options just into one structure for reducing
the duplicated code? Something maybe like:

static struct mprotect_param {
        char *tname;
        int pg_num;
        int prot1;
        char *prot1_str;
        int prot2;
        char *prot2_str;
} mprotect_params[] = {
        {"R->RW", 1,
                PROT_READ, "PROT_READ",
                PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"},

        {"RW->R", 1,
                PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE",
                PROT_READ, "PROT_READ"},

        {"R->RW 1/2", 2,
                PROT_READ, "PROT_READ",
                PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"},

        {"RW->R 1/2", 2,
                PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE",
                PROT_READ, "PROT_READ"},

        {"NONE->R", 1,
                PROT_NONE, "PROT_NONE",
                PROT_READ, "PROT_READ"},

        {"NONE->RW", 1,
                PROT_NONE, "PROT_NONE",
                PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, "PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE"},
};

static void run_test(unsigned int i)
{
        struct mprotect_param *mpt = &mprotect_params[i];

        if (test_mprotect(fd, mpt->tname,
                        hpage_size * mpt->pg_num, mpt->prot1,
mpt->prot1_str,
                        hpage_size, mpt->prot2, mpt->prot2_str))
                return;

        tst_res(TPASS, "Successfully tested mprotect with hugetlb area\n");
}

static void setup(void)
{
        struct sigaction sa = {
                .sa_sigaction = sig_handler,
                .sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO,
        };

        SAFE_SIGACTION(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL);

        hpage_size = tst_get_hugepage_size();

        fd = tst_creat_unlinked(MNTPOINT, 0);
        p = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, 2*hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED,
fd, 0);

        memset(p, 0, hpage_size);
        SAFE_MUNMAP(p, hpage_size);
}

static void cleanup(void)
{
        SAFE_MUNMAP(p+hpage_size, hpage_size);

        if (fd >= 0)
                SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
}

static struct tst_test test = {
        .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(mprotect_params),
        .needs_root = 1,
        .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
        .needs_hugetlbfs = 1,
        .needs_tmpdir = 1,
        .setup = setup,
        .cleanup = cleanup,
        .test = run_test,
        .hugepages = {2, TST_NEEDS},
};



> +
> +       tst_res(TPASS, "Successfully tested mprotect with hugetlb area");
>



> +cleanup:
> +       SAFE_MUNMAP(p+hpage_size, hpage_size);
> +       SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
>

we can move this into cleanup() function as well.



> +}
> +
> +static void setup(void)
> +{
> +       hpage_size = SAFE_READ_MEMINFO(MEMINFO_HPAGE_SIZE)*1024;
> +}
> +
> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> +       if (fd >= 0)
> +               SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
> +}
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> +       .needs_root = 1,
> +       .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
> +       .needs_hugetlbfs = 1,
> +       .needs_tmpdir = 1,
> +       .setup = setup,
> +       .cleanup = cleanup,
> +       .test_all = run_test,
> +       .hugepages = {2, TST_NEEDS},
> +};
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


More information about the ltp mailing list