This is a continuation of the proposal[1] for mocking init_task for KUnit testing. Changing the behavior of kill_something_info() is moving forward[2] and I'd _really_ like to have some unit tests in place to actually test the behavioral changes.
I tried to incorporate feedback from Daniel and David, and I think the result is fairly workable -- the only tricky part is building valid task_struct instances. :)
Notably, I haven't actually gotten as far as testing the actual proposed behavioral change since I wanted to make sure this approach wasn't going to totally crash and burn.
Thoughts?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202212012008.D6F6109@keescook/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87jzu12pjh.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org
Cc: Brendan Higgins brendan.higgins@linux.dev Cc: David Gow davidgow@google.com Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: Petr Skocik pskocik@gmail.com Cc: Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com Cc: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org --- include/kunit/resource.h | 15 ++++ include/linux/sched/signal.h | 11 ++- kernel/signal.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/resource.h b/include/kunit/resource.h index c7383e90f5c9..dbf84a58f7a6 100644 --- a/include/kunit/resource.h +++ b/include/kunit/resource.h @@ -479,4 +479,19 @@ void kunit_remove_action(struct kunit *test, void kunit_release_action(struct kunit *test, kunit_action_t *action, void *ctx); + +#define kunit_get_mock_pointer(name, actual) ({ \ + typeof(*(actual)) *ptr = actual; \ + struct kunit_resource *resource; \ + \ + if (kunit_get_current_test()) { \ + resource = kunit_find_named_resource(current->kunit_test, name); \ + if (resource) { \ + ptr = resource->data; \ + kunit_put_resource(resource); \ + } \ + } \ + ptr; \ +}) + #endif /* _KUNIT_RESOURCE_H */ diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h index 669e8cff40c7..700271f43491 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h @@ -637,14 +637,19 @@ static inline unsigned long sigsp(unsigned long sp, struct ksignal *ksig) extern void __cleanup_sighand(struct sighand_struct *); extern void flush_itimer_signals(void);
+/* This is used for KUnit mocking. */ +#ifndef __init_task_ptr +#define __init_task_ptr (&init_task) +#endif + #define tasklist_empty() \ - list_empty(&init_task.tasks) + list_empty(&__init_task_ptr->tasks)
#define next_task(p) \ list_entry_rcu((p)->tasks.next, struct task_struct, tasks)
#define for_each_process(p) \ - for (p = &init_task ; (p = next_task(p)) != &init_task ; ) + for (p = __init_task_ptr ; (p = next_task(p)) != __init_task_ptr ; )
extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void);
@@ -653,7 +658,7 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void); * 'break' will not work as expected - use goto instead. */ #define do_each_thread(g, t) \ - for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do + for (g = t = __init_task_ptr ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != __init_task_ptr ; ) do
#define while_each_thread(g, t) \ while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g) diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c index b5370fe5c198..7607d302ebb9 100644 --- a/kernel/signal.c +++ b/kernel/signal.c @@ -11,6 +11,14 @@ * to allow signals to be sent reliably. */
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) +/* This must be defined before we include include/linux/sched/signal.h */ +#define __init_task_ptr kunit_get_mock_pointer("mock_init_task", &init_task) + +#include <kunit/resource.h> +#include <kunit/test-bug.h> +#endif + #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/init.h> @@ -4842,3 +4850,130 @@ void kdb_send_sig(struct task_struct *t, int sig) kdb_printf("Signal %d is sent to process %d.\n", sig, t->pid); } #endif /* CONFIG_KGDB_KDB */ + +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) +static void test_empty_task_list(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_resource resource; + static struct task_struct empty_task_list = { + .tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(empty_task_list.tasks), + }; + struct task_struct *p; + int count = 0; + + kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource, + "mock_init_task", &empty_task_list); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, tasklist_empty()); + + for_each_process(p) + count++; + + /* System hangs without this... */ + kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 0); +} + +static void test_for_each_process(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_resource resource; + static struct task_struct task1 = { + .pid = 1, + .tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(task1.tasks), + }; + static struct task_struct task2 = { + .pid = 2, + }, task3 = { + .pid = 3, + }; + struct task_struct *p; + int count = 0; + + list_add(&task2.tasks, &task1.tasks); + list_add(&task3.tasks, &task1.tasks); + + kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource, + "mock_init_task", &task1); + + /* Walk the process list backwards. */ + for_each_process(p) { + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3 - count, p->pid); + count++; + } + + /* System hangs without this... */ + kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource); + + /* init_task isn't counted... */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 2); +} + +static void test_kill_something_info(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_resource resource; + static struct task_struct task1 = { + .pid = 1, + .tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(task1.tasks), + }; + static struct task_struct task2 = { + .pid = 2, + }, task3 = { + .pid = 3, + }; + struct kernel_siginfo siginfo = { + .si_code = SI_KERNEL, + }; + struct task_struct *p; + int count = 0; + + list_add(&task2.tasks, &task1.tasks); + list_add(&task3.tasks, &task1.tasks); + + kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource, + "mock_init_task", &task1); + + /* Make sure we have a process list. */ + for_each_process(p) + count++; + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 2); + + /* INT_MIN pid must return ESRCH */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -ESRCH, + kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, INT_MIN)); + + /* Invalid signal: EINVAL */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -EINVAL, + kill_something_info(_NSIG + 1, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 2)); + + /* Missing pid: ESRCH */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -ESRCH, + kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 42)); + + /* Bypass permission checks with SEND_SIG_NOINFO. */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, + kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 2)); + + /* XXX: Hm, I was expecting this to explode in cred deref... */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, + kill_something_info(SIGHUP, &siginfo, 3)); + + /* XXX more tests here, perhaps after mocking out group_send_sig_info() ... */ + + /* System hangs without this... */ + kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource); +} + +static struct kunit_case test_cases[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(test_empty_task_list), + KUNIT_CASE(test_for_each_process), + KUNIT_CASE(test_kill_something_info), + {} +}; + +static struct kunit_suite test_suite = { + .name = "signal", + .test_cases = test_cases, +}; +kunit_test_suite(test_suite); +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT */
Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org writes:
This is a continuation of the proposal[1] for mocking init_task for KUnit testing. Changing the behavior of kill_something_info() is moving forward[2] and I'd _really_ like to have some unit tests in place to actually test the behavioral changes.
I tried to incorporate feedback from Daniel and David, and I think the result is fairly workable -- the only tricky part is building valid task_struct instances. :)
Notably, I haven't actually gotten as far as testing the actual proposed behavioral change since I wanted to make sure this approach wasn't going to totally crash and burn.
Thoughts?
Overall this looks like a nice start. More comments below.
I do wonder though. Would it perhaps be easier to create a pid namespace with just the processes you want in it?
I am wondering because you failed to mock find_vpid and so you are actually testing sending signals to kernel threads.
Eric
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202212012008.D6F6109@keescook/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87jzu12pjh.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org
Cc: Brendan Higgins brendan.higgins@linux.dev Cc: David Gow davidgow@google.com Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: Petr Skocik pskocik@gmail.com Cc: Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com Cc: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org
include/kunit/resource.h | 15 ++++ include/linux/sched/signal.h | 11 ++- kernel/signal.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/resource.h b/include/kunit/resource.h index c7383e90f5c9..dbf84a58f7a6 100644 --- a/include/kunit/resource.h +++ b/include/kunit/resource.h @@ -479,4 +479,19 @@ void kunit_remove_action(struct kunit *test, void kunit_release_action(struct kunit *test, kunit_action_t *action, void *ctx);
+#define kunit_get_mock_pointer(name, actual) ({ \
- typeof(*(actual)) *ptr = actual; \
- struct kunit_resource *resource; \
\- if (kunit_get_current_test()) { \
resource = kunit_find_named_resource(current->kunit_test, name); \if (resource) { \ptr = resource->data; \kunit_put_resource(resource); \} \- } \
- ptr; \
+})
#endif /* _KUNIT_RESOURCE_H */ diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h index 669e8cff40c7..700271f43491 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h @@ -637,14 +637,19 @@ static inline unsigned long sigsp(unsigned long sp, struct ksignal *ksig) extern void __cleanup_sighand(struct sighand_struct *); extern void flush_itimer_signals(void); +/* This is used for KUnit mocking. */ +#ifndef __init_task_ptr +#define __init_task_ptr (&init_task) +#endif
#define tasklist_empty() \
- list_empty(&init_task.tasks)
- list_empty(&__init_task_ptr->tasks)
This exposes an implementation detail that makes my brain hurt.
I think somewhere we should just have a global variable "struct list_head tasklist;" and use all of the modern list accessors on it. Instead of placing that list in the first idle task for no reason. That would allow decoupling all of the idle threads not just the first one from the tasklist.
More importantly this has only a single user and that user is an assert that the per_cpu idle tasks come up before we start any other tasks.
So we can just skip instrumenting this.
Given what your tests have to do to emulate the init_task without it actually being an init_task in the long term it probably makes sense to form the cleanup and just get init_task out of the picture entirely.
Maybe that is too much right now, but it feels like the clean way to handle this situation.
#define next_task(p) \ list_entry_rcu((p)->tasks.next, struct task_struct, tasks) #define for_each_process(p) \
- for (p = &init_task ; (p = next_task(p)) != &init_task ; )
- for (p = __init_task_ptr ; (p = next_task(p)) != __init_task_ptr ; )
extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void); @@ -653,7 +658,7 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void);
'break' will not work as expected - use goto instead.*/ #define do_each_thread(g, t) \
- for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do
- for (g = t = __init_task_ptr ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != __init_task_ptr ; ) do
Arguably we can skip this as well. There are only 3 uses of do_each_thread (pivot_root, SAK, and ia64 backtrace) and they all should be changed to be for_each_process_thread.
#define while_each_thread(g, t) \ while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g) diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c index b5370fe5c198..7607d302ebb9 100644 --- a/kernel/signal.c +++ b/kernel/signal.c @@ -11,6 +11,14 @@
to allow signals to be sent reliably.*/ +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) +/* This must be defined before we include include/linux/sched/signal.h */ +#define __init_task_ptr kunit_get_mock_pointer("mock_init_task", &init_task)
+#include <kunit/resource.h> +#include <kunit/test-bug.h> +#endif
#include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/init.h> @@ -4842,3 +4850,130 @@ void kdb_send_sig(struct task_struct *t, int sig) kdb_printf("Signal %d is sent to process %d.\n", sig, t->pid); } #endif /* CONFIG_KGDB_KDB */
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT) +static void test_empty_task_list(struct kunit *test) +{
- struct kunit_resource resource;
- static struct task_struct empty_task_list = {
.tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(empty_task_list.tasks),};- struct task_struct *p;
- int count = 0;
- kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource,
"mock_init_task", &empty_task_list);- KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, tasklist_empty());
- for_each_process(p)
count++;- /* System hangs without this... */
- kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource);
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 0);
+}
We should be able to just skip this test.
+static void test_for_each_process(struct kunit *test) +{
- struct kunit_resource resource;
- static struct task_struct task1 = {
.pid = 1,.tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(task1.tasks),};- static struct task_struct task2 = {
.pid = 2,}, task3 = {.pid = 3,};
Note that these pid values in the tasks are not used by signal delivery.
- struct task_struct *p;
- int count = 0;
- list_add(&task2.tasks, &task1.tasks);
- list_add(&task3.tasks, &task1.tasks);
^^^^^ To match fork these should be list_add_tail.
- kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource,
"mock_init_task", &task1);- /* Walk the process list backwards. */
The comment is wrong. You built your list backwards, the process list is not walked backwards.
- for_each_process(p) {
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 3 - count, p->pid);count++;- }
- /* System hangs without this... */
- kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource);
- /* init_task isn't counted... */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 2);
+}
+static void test_kill_something_info(struct kunit *test) +{
- struct kunit_resource resource;
- static struct task_struct task1 = {
.pid = 1,.tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(task1.tasks),};- static struct task_struct task2 = {
.pid = 2,}, task3 = {.pid = 3,};- struct kernel_siginfo siginfo = {
.si_code = SI_KERNEL,};- struct task_struct *p;
- int count = 0;
- list_add(&task2.tasks, &task1.tasks);
- list_add(&task3.tasks, &task1.tasks);
These should also be list_add_tail.
- kunit_add_named_resource(test, NULL, NULL, &resource,
"mock_init_task", &task1);- /* Make sure we have a process list. */
- for_each_process(p)
count++;- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 2);
- /* INT_MIN pid must return ESRCH */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -ESRCH,
kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, INT_MIN));- /* Invalid signal: EINVAL */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -EINVAL,
kill_something_info(_NSIG + 1, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 2));- /* Missing pid: ESRCH */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -ESRCH,
kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 42));
This confirms you don't have a process with pid #42 your system when the test is run.
- /* Bypass permission checks with SEND_SIG_NOINFO. */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0,
kill_something_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, 2));
This confirms you a process with pid #2 aka kthread on your system when the test is run.
- /* XXX: Hm, I was expecting this to explode in cred deref... */
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0,
kill_something_info(SIGHUP, &siginfo, 3));
This confirms you have a process with pid #3 on your system when the test is run. Pid #3 on my system refers to a kthread.
- /* XXX more tests here, perhaps after mocking out group_send_sig_info() ... */
You need to mock find_vpid before you test sending to processes.
Right now your tests are not testing sending signals to your mocked tasks but instead to real tasks.
- /* System hangs without this... */
- kunit_remove_resource(test, &resource);
+}
+static struct kunit_case test_cases[] = {
- KUNIT_CASE(test_empty_task_list),
- KUNIT_CASE(test_for_each_process),
- KUNIT_CASE(test_kill_something_info),
- {}
+};
+static struct kunit_suite test_suite = {
- .name = "signal",
- .test_cases = test_cases,
+}; +kunit_test_suite(test_suite); +#endif /* CONFIG_KUNIT */
On 08/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arguably we can skip this as well. There are only 3 uses of do_each_thread (pivot_root, SAK, and ia64 backtrace) and they all should be changed to be for_each_process_thread.
Hmm. I thought that do_each_thread() was already killed ... Let me send the trivial patch.
We also need to kill (or rework) while_each_thread() and next_thread(), I'll try to do this tomorrow.
Oleg.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:08:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org writes:
This is a continuation of the proposal[1] for mocking init_task for KUnit testing. Changing the behavior of kill_something_info() is moving forward[2] and I'd _really_ like to have some unit tests in place to actually test the behavioral changes.
I tried to incorporate feedback from Daniel and David, and I think the result is fairly workable -- the only tricky part is building valid task_struct instances. :)
Notably, I haven't actually gotten as far as testing the actual proposed behavioral change since I wanted to make sure this approach wasn't going to totally crash and burn.
Thoughts?
Overall this looks like a nice start. More comments below.
I do wonder though. Would it perhaps be easier to create a pid namespace with just the processes you want in it?
Do you have a short example of how I could do this correctly? It's not obvious to me how to actually set all that up (and tear it down).
I am wondering because you failed to mock find_vpid and so you are actually testing sending signals to kernel threads.
Hah. Eek.
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Eric W. Biederman -
Kees Cook -
Oleg Nesterov