[PATCH v2 0/4] kunit: Fix some bugs in kunit

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[PATCH v3 00/10] iov_iter: kunit:...

Re: [PATCH] list: test: potential...

Jinjie Ruan

21 Sep 2023 21 Sep '23

1:40 a.m.

The test_cases is not freed in kunit_free_suite_set().

And the copy pointer may be moved in kunit_filter_suites().

The filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases allocated in the last kunit_filter_attr_tests() in last inner for loop may be leaked if kunit_filter_suites() fails.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

Changes in v2: - Add Reviewed-by. - Add the memory leak backtrace for the 4th patch. - Remove the unused func kernel test robot noticed for the 4th patch. - Update the commit message for the 4th patch.

Jinjie Ruan (4): kunit: Fix missed memory release in kunit_free_suite_set() kunit: Fix the wrong kfree of copy for kunit_filter_suites() kunit: Fix possible memory leak in kunit_filter_suites() kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

lib/kunit/executor.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------ lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

-- 2.34.1

Show replies by date

Jinjie Ruan

21 Sep 21 Sep

1:40 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: Fix missed memory release in kunit_free_suite_set()

modprobe cpumask_kunit and rmmod cpumask_kunit, kmemleak detect a suspected memory leak as below.

If kunit_filter_suites() in kunit_module_init() succeeds, the suite_set.start will not be NULL and the kunit_free_suite_set() in kunit_module_exit() should free all the memory which has not been freed. However the test_cases in suites is left out.

unreferenced object 0xffff54ac47e83200 (size 512): comm "modprobe", pid 592, jiffies 4294913238 (age 1367.612s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 84 13 1a f0 d3 b6 ff ff 30 68 1a f0 d3 b6 ff ff ........0h...... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<000000008dec63a2>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368 [<00000000ec280d8e>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290 [<00000000896c7740>] __kmalloc+0x60/0x2c0 [<000000007a50fa06>] kunit_filter_suites+0x254/0x5b8 [<0000000078cc98e2>] kunit_module_notify+0xf4/0x240 [<0000000033cea952>] notifier_call_chain+0x98/0x17c [<00000000973d05cc>] notifier_call_chain_robust+0x4c/0xa4 [<000000005f95895f>] blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x4c/0x74 [<0000000048e36fa7>] load_module+0x1a2c/0x1c40 [<0000000004eb8a91>] init_module_from_file+0x94/0xcc [<0000000037dbba28>] idempotent_init_module+0x184/0x278 [<00000000161b75cb>] __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x68/0xa8 [<000000006dc1669b>] invoke_syscall+0x44/0x100 [<00000000fa87e304>] el0_svc_common.constprop.1+0x68/0xe0 [<000000009d8ad866>] do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28 [<000000005b83c607>] el0_svc+0x3c/0xc4

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Fixes: b67abaad4d25 ("kunit: Allow kunit test modules to use test filtering") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com --- v2: - Add Reviewed-by. --- lib/kunit/executor.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index a6348489d45f..a037a46fae5e 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -137,8 +137,10 @@ void kunit_free_suite_set(struct kunit_suite_set suite_set) { struct kunit_suite * const *suites;

- for (suites = suite_set.start; suites < suite_set.end; suites++) + for (suites = suite_set.start; suites < suite_set.end; suites++) { + kfree((*suites)->test_cases); kfree(*suites); + } kfree(suite_set.start); }

-- 2.34.1

David Gow

22 Sep 22 Sep

7:34 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: Fix missed memory release in kunit_free_suite_set()

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 09:41, 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...

modprobe cpumask_kunit and rmmod cpumask_kunit, kmemleak detect a suspected memory leak as below.

If kunit_filter_suites() in kunit_module_init() succeeds, the suite_set.start will not be NULL and the kunit_free_suite_set() in kunit_module_exit() should free all the memory which has not been freed. However the test_cases in suites is left out.

unreferenced object 0xffff54ac47e83200 (size 512): comm "modprobe", pid 592, jiffies 4294913238 (age 1367.612s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 84 13 1a f0 d3 b6 ff ff 30 68 1a f0 d3 b6 ff ff ........0h...... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<000000008dec63a2>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0xb8/0x368 [<00000000ec280d8e>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x174/0x290 [<00000000896c7740>] __kmalloc+0x60/0x2c0 [<000000007a50fa06>] kunit_filter_suites+0x254/0x5b8 [<0000000078cc98e2>] kunit_module_notify+0xf4/0x240 [<0000000033cea952>] notifier_call_chain+0x98/0x17c [<00000000973d05cc>] notifier_call_chain_robust+0x4c/0xa4 [<000000005f95895f>] blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x4c/0x74 [<0000000048e36fa7>] load_module+0x1a2c/0x1c40 [<0000000004eb8a91>] init_module_from_file+0x94/0xcc [<0000000037dbba28>] idempotent_init_module+0x184/0x278 [<00000000161b75cb>] __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x68/0xa8 [<000000006dc1669b>] invoke_syscall+0x44/0x100 [<00000000fa87e304>] el0_svc_common.constprop.1+0x68/0xe0 [<000000009d8ad866>] do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28 [<000000005b83c607>] el0_svc+0x3c/0xc4

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Fixes: b67abaad4d25 ("kunit: Allow kunit test modules to use test filtering") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com

v2:

Add Reviewed-by.

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com

...

lib/kunit/executor.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index a6348489d45f..a037a46fae5e 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -137,8 +137,10 @@ void kunit_free_suite_set(struct kunit_suite_set suite_set) { struct kunit_suite * const *suites;
  for (suites = suite_set.start; suites < suite_set.end; suites++)
  for (suites = suite_set.start; suites < suite_set.end; suites++) {
          kfree((*suites)->test_cases);
          kfree(*suites);
  }
  kfree(suite_set.start);
}

-- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-2-ruanjin....

Jinjie Ruan

21 Sep 21 Sep

1:40 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] kunit: Fix the wrong kfree of copy for kunit_filter_suites()

If the outer layer for loop is iterated more than once and it fails not in the first iteration, the copy pointer has been moved. So it should free the original copy's backup copy_start.

Fixes: abbf73816b6f ("kunit: fix possible memory leak in kunit_filter_suites()") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com --- v2: - Add Reviewed-by. --- lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index a037a46fae5e..9358ed2df839 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set,

free_copy: if (*err) - kfree(copy); + kfree(copy_start);

return filtered; }

-- 2.34.1

David Gow

22 Sep 22 Sep

7:34 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] kunit: Fix the wrong kfree of copy for kunit_filter_suites()

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 09:41, 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...

If the outer layer for loop is iterated more than once and it fails not in the first iteration, the copy pointer has been moved. So it should free the original copy's backup copy_start.

Fixes: abbf73816b6f ("kunit: fix possible memory leak in kunit_filter_suites()") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com

v2:

Add Reviewed-by.

Nice catch. Thanks!

Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com

Cheers, -- David

...

lib/kunit/executor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index a037a46fae5e..9358ed2df839 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set,

free_copy: if (*err)
          kfree(copy);
          kfree(copy_start);

  return filtered;
}

2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-3-ruanjin....

Jinjie Ruan

21 Sep 21 Sep

1:40 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] kunit: Fix possible memory leak in kunit_filter_suites()

If the outer layer for loop is iterated more than once and it fails not in the first iteration, the filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases allocated in the last kunit_filter_attr_tests() in last inner for loop is leaked.

So add a new free_filtered_suite err label and free the filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases so far. And change kmalloc_array of copy to kcalloc to Clear the copy to make the kfree safe.

Fixes: 5d31f71efcb6 ("kunit: add kunit.filter_glob cmdline option to filter suites") Fixes: 529534e8cba3 ("kunit: Add ability to filter attributes") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com --- v2: - Add Reviewed-by. --- lib/kunit/executor.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index 9358ed2df839..1236b3cd2fbb 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -157,10 +157,11 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, struct kunit_suite_set filtered = {NULL, NULL}; struct kunit_glob_filter parsed_glob; struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters = NULL; + struct kunit_suite * const *suites;

const size_t max = suite_set->end - suite_set->start;

- copy = kmalloc_array(max, sizeof(*filtered.start), GFP_KERNEL); + copy = kcalloc(max, sizeof(*filtered.start), GFP_KERNEL); if (!copy) { /* won't be able to run anything, return an empty set */ return filtered; } @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, parsed_glob.test_glob); if (IS_ERR(filtered_suite)) { *err = PTR_ERR(filtered_suite); - goto free_parsed_filters; + goto free_filtered_suite; } } if (filter_count > 0 && parsed_filters != NULL) { @@ -212,11 +213,11 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, filtered_suite = new_filtered_suite;

if (*err) - goto free_parsed_filters; + goto free_filtered_suite;

if (IS_ERR(filtered_suite)) { *err = PTR_ERR(filtered_suite); - goto free_parsed_filters; + goto free_filtered_suite; } if (!filtered_suite) break; @@ -231,6 +232,14 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, filtered.start = copy_start; filtered.end = copy;

+free_filtered_suite: + if (*err) { + for (suites = copy_start; suites < copy; suites++) { + kfree((*suites)->test_cases); + kfree(*suites); + } + } + free_parsed_filters: if (filter_count) kfree(parsed_filters);

-- 2.34.1

David Gow

22 Sep 22 Sep

7:34 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] kunit: Fix possible memory leak in kunit_filter_suites()

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 09:41, 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...

If the outer layer for loop is iterated more than once and it fails not in the first iteration, the filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases allocated in the last kunit_filter_attr_tests() in last inner for loop is leaked.

So add a new free_filtered_suite err label and free the filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases so far. And change kmalloc_array of copy to kcalloc to Clear the copy to make the kfree safe.

Fixes: 5d31f71efcb6 ("kunit: add kunit.filter_glob cmdline option to filter suites") Fixes: 529534e8cba3 ("kunit: Add ability to filter attributes") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com

v2:

Add Reviewed-by.

This looks good to me, though I admit that this code is starting to get a bit too complicated...

A few thoughts below, but they're more notes-to-self for a future refactoring than something I think this patch needs.

Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com

-- David

...

lib/kunit/executor.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor.c b/lib/kunit/executor.c index 9358ed2df839..1236b3cd2fbb 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor.c @@ -157,10 +157,11 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, struct kunit_suite_set filtered = {NULL, NULL}; struct kunit_glob_filter parsed_glob; struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters = NULL;
  struct kunit_suite * const *suites;

  const size_t max = suite_set->end - suite_set->start;
  copy = kmalloc_array(max, sizeof(*filtered.start), GFP_KERNEL);
  copy = kcalloc(max, sizeof(*filtered.start), GFP_KERNEL);
  if (!copy) { /* won't be able to run anything, return an empty set */
          return filtered;
  }
@@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, parsed_glob.test_glob); if (IS_ERR(filtered_suite)) { *err = PTR_ERR(filtered_suite);
                          goto free_parsed_filters;
                          goto free_filtered_suite;
                  }
          }
          if (filter_count > 0 && parsed_filters != NULL) {
@@ -212,11 +213,11 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, filtered_suite = new_filtered_suite;
                            if (*err)
                                  goto free_parsed_filters;
                                  goto free_filtered_suite;

                          if (IS_ERR(filtered_suite)) {
                                  *err = PTR_ERR(filtered_suite);
                                  goto free_parsed_filters;
                                  goto free_filtered_suite;
                          }
                          if (!filtered_suite)
                                  break;
@@ -231,6 +232,14 @@ kunit_filter_suites(const struct kunit_suite_set *suite_set, filtered.start = copy_start; filtered.end = copy;

Do we really need both filtered.start and copy_start, and filtered.end / copy? The only case where they're different would be when an error occurs, and it should be easy to simply reset them to NULL then, anyway.

...

+free_filtered_suite:

```
  if (*err) {
```

          for (suites = copy_start; suites < copy; suites++) {

                  kfree((*suites)->test_cases);

```
                  kfree(*suites);
```
```
          }
```

We possibly should set filtered = {NULL, NULL} here. It's not actually possible for them to be non-NULL at this point, so it is redundant, but it's not easy to tell (and it looks like this could be returning a freed pointer here, even though it's not).

...

  }
free_parsed_filters: if (filter_count) kfree(parsed_filters); -- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-4-ruanjin....

Jinjie Ruan

21 Sep 21 Sep

1:40 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

When CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

So use kunit_free_suite_set() to free the filtered_suite, filtered_suite->test_cases and copy as kunit_module_exit() and kunit_run_all_tests() do it. And the func kfree_at_end() is not used so remove it. After applying this patch, the following memory leak is never detected.

unreferenced object 0xffff8881001de400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd388 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 80 cd 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

unreferenced object 0xffff888100da8400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888105117878 (size 96): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff a0 ac 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888102c31c00 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 6e 6f 72 6d 61 6c 5f 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 normal_suite.... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd250 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 00 a9 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888104f4e400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite........... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cc620 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff c0 a8 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309142251.uJ8saAZv-lkp@intel.com/ --- v2: - Add the memory leak backtrace. - Remove the unused func kfree_at_end() kernel test robot noticed. - Update the commit message. --- lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index b4f6f96b2844..88d26c9cdce8 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ #include <kunit/test.h> #include <kunit/attributes.h>

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases); @@ -56,7 +55,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

/* Validate we just have suite2 */ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); @@ -64,6 +62,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)

/* Contains one element (end is 1 past end) */ KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2.test2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

/* Validate we just have suite2 */ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); @@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -109,10 +112,12 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)

got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "not_found", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end, "should be empty to indicate no match"); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -172,7 +177,6 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

/* Validate we just have normal_suite */ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); @@ -183,6 +187,9 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "normal"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -200,10 +207,12 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)

got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end, "should be empty to indicate no match"); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -222,7 +231,6 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, "skip", &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); - kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

/* Validate we have both the slow and normal test */ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); @@ -233,6 +241,9 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) /* Now ensure slow is skipped and normal is not */ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status); + + if (!err) + kunit_free_suite_set(got); }

static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { @@ -255,21 +266,6 @@ static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);

/* Test helpers */ - -/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free). - * Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data. - */ -static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) -{ - /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */ - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free)) - return; - - kunit_add_action(test, - (kunit_action_t *)kfree, - (void *)to_free); -} - static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases)

-- 2.34.1

Rae Moar

7:50 p.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:41 PM 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...

When CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

So use kunit_free_suite_set() to free the filtered_suite, filtered_suite->test_cases and copy as kunit_module_exit() and kunit_run_all_tests() do it. And the func kfree_at_end() is not used so remove it. After applying this patch, the following memory leak is never detected.

unreferenced object 0xffff8881001de400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd388 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 80 cd 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

unreferenced object 0xffff888100da8400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888105117878 (size 96): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff a0 ac 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888102c31c00 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 6e 6f 72 6d 61 6c 5f 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 normal_suite.... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd250 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 00 a9 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888104f4e400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite........... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cc620 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff c0 a8 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309142251.uJ8saAZv-lkp@intel.com/

Hello!

Thanks for sending out a new version and responding to my comments. I do have one issue below.

Thanks! -Rae

...

v2:

Add the memory leak backtrace.

Remove the unused func kfree_at_end() kernel test robot noticed.

Update the commit message.

lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index b4f6f96b2844..88d26c9cdce8 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ #include <kunit/test.h> #include <kunit/attributes.h>

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases); @@ -56,7 +55,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -64,6 +62,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
    /* Contains one element (end is 1 past end) */
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);

If filtering incorrectly outputs more than one suite, the line above will fail. This will cause the test to exit immediately because this is an ASSERT statement instead of an EXPECT statement.

If this happens, the suite set will never be freed. Instead we should change this to KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ so the test will continue to the below if statement.

We should change this for all similar lines where we still want to free the suite if they fail.

...

```
  if (!err)
```
```
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
```

...

}

static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2.test2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);

Again I recommend changing the line in this test from "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);" to an EXPECT statement.

...

}

static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -109,10 +112,12 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)

    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "not_found", NULL, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);

  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");

```
  if (!err)
```
```
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
```

This test seems good.

...

}

static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -172,7 +177,6 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have normal_suite */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -183,6 +187,9 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "normal"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);

Again I recommend changing the line in this test from "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);" to an EXPECT statement.

...

}

static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -200,10 +207,12 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)

    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);

  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");

```
  if (!err)
```
```
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
```

This test seems good.

...

}

static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -222,7 +231,6 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, "skip", &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we have both the slow and normal test */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases);
@@ -233,6 +241,9 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) /* Now ensure slow is skipped and normal is not */ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);

Similarly, the line "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, kunit_suite_num_test_cases(got.start[0]), 2)" may exit causing the suite to not be freed. This should be changed to an EXPECT statement. However, we may then want to check before accessing the test cases.

...

}

static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { @@ -255,21 +266,6 @@ static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);

/* Test helpers */

-/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free).

Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data.

*/

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) -{
  /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */
  if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free))
          return;
  kunit_add_action(test,
                  (kunit_action_t *)kfree,
                  (void *)to_free);
-}

static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases) -- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-5-ruanjin....

Ruan Jinjie

22 Sep 22 Sep

6:37 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

On 2023/9/22 3:50, Rae Moar wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:41 PM 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...
When CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

So use kunit_free_suite_set() to free the filtered_suite, filtered_suite->test_cases and copy as kunit_module_exit() and kunit_run_all_tests() do it. And the func kfree_at_end() is not used so remove it. After applying this patch, the following memory leak is never detected.

unreferenced object 0xffff8881001de400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd388 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 80 cd 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

unreferenced object 0xffff888100da8400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888105117878 (size 96): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff a0 ac 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888102c31c00 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 6e 6f 72 6d 61 6c 5f 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 normal_suite.... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd250 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 00 a9 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888104f4e400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite........... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cc620 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff c0 a8 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309142251.uJ8saAZv-lkp@intel.com/

Hello!

Thanks for sending out a new version and responding to my comments. I do have one issue below.

Thanks! -Rae

...
v2:

Add the memory leak backtrace.

Remove the unused func kfree_at_end() kernel test robot noticed.

Update the commit message.

lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index b4f6f96b2844..88d26c9cdce8 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ #include <kunit/test.h> #include <kunit/attributes.h>

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases); @@ -56,7 +55,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -64,6 +62,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
    /* Contains one element (end is 1 past end) */
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);
If filtering incorrectly outputs more than one suite, the line above will fail. This will cause the test to exit immediately because this is an ASSERT statement instead of an EXPECT statement.

If this happens, the suite set will never be freed. Instead we should change this to KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ so the test will continue to the below if statement.

We should change this for all similar lines where we still want to free the suite if they fail.

Right! It is better to update the kfree_at_end() func to solve these problems. I'll try to do it sooner.

...

...
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
...
}

static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2.test2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
Again I recommend changing the line in this test from "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);" to an EXPECT statement.

...
}

static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -109,10 +112,12 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "not_found", NULL, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
This test seems good.

...
}

static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -172,7 +177,6 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have normal_suite */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -183,6 +187,9 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "normal"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
Again I recommend changing the line in this test from "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);" to an EXPECT statement.

...
}

static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -200,10 +207,12 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
This test seems good.

...
}

static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -222,7 +231,6 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, "skip", &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we have both the slow and normal test */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases);
@@ -233,6 +241,9 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) /* Now ensure slow is skipped and normal is not */ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
Similarly, the line "KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, kunit_suite_num_test_cases(got.start[0]), 2)" may exit causing the suite to not be freed. This should be changed to an EXPECT statement. However, we may then want to check before accessing the test cases.

...
}

static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { @@ -255,21 +266,6 @@ static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);

/* Test helpers */

-/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free).

Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data.

*/

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) -{
  /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */
  if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free))
          return;
  kunit_add_action(test,
                  (kunit_action_t *)kfree,
                  (void *)to_free);
-}

static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases) -- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-5-ruanjin....

David Gow

7:34 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 09:41, 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...

When CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

So use kunit_free_suite_set() to free the filtered_suite, filtered_suite->test_cases and copy as kunit_module_exit() and kunit_run_all_tests() do it. And the func kfree_at_end() is not used so remove it. After applying this patch, the following memory leak is never detected.

unreferenced object 0xffff8881001de400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd388 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 80 cd 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

unreferenced object 0xffff888100da8400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888105117878 (size 96): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff a0 ac 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888102c31c00 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 6e 6f 72 6d 61 6c 5f 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 normal_suite.... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd250 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 00 a9 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888104f4e400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite........... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cc620 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff c0 a8 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309142251.uJ8saAZv-lkp@intel.com/

v2:

Add the memory leak backtrace.

Remove the unused func kfree_at_end() kernel test robot noticed.

We have some plans to reintroduce a similar function later as a general kunit feature, but it's fine removing it here.

...

Update the commit message.

This mostly looks good, but as Rae pointed out, the cleanup won't get called if some of the assertions fail.

Using something more like kfree_at_end(), such as kunit_add_action(test, (kunit_action_t *)kunit_free_suite_set, got) would resolve all of these issues.

(You may need to write a wrapper around kunit_free_suite_set to make it work as an action if you go down that path.)

Cheers, -- David

...

lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index b4f6f96b2844..88d26c9cdce8 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ #include <kunit/test.h> #include <kunit/attributes.h>

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases); @@ -56,7 +55,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -64,6 +62,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
    /* Contains one element (end is 1 past end) */
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2.test2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)

Because of the KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0) call above, we know err is nonzero here, so this conditional shouldn't be required. But it also wouldn't be if you used a deferred action to clean up.

...

          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -109,10 +112,12 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "not_found", NULL, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -172,7 +177,6 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have normal_suite */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -183,6 +187,9 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "normal"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -200,10 +207,12 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -222,7 +231,6 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, "skip", &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we have both the slow and normal test */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases);
@@ -233,6 +241,9 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) /* Now ensure slow is skipped and normal is not */ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { @@ -255,21 +266,6 @@ static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);

/* Test helpers */

-/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free).

Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data.

*/

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) -{
  /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */
  if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free))
          return;
  kunit_add_action(test,
                  (kunit_action_t *)kfree,
                  (void *)to_free);
-}

static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases) -- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-5-ruanjin....

Ruan Jinjie

7:45 a.m.

New subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: test: Fix the possible memory leak in executor_test

On 2023/9/22 15:34, David Gow wrote:

...

On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 09:41, 'Jinjie Ruan' via KUnit Development kunit-dev@googlegroups.com wrote:

...
When CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y, making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.

If kunit_filter_suites() succeeds, not only copy but also filtered_suite and filtered_suite->test_cases should be freed.

So use kunit_free_suite_set() to free the filtered_suite, filtered_suite->test_cases and copy as kunit_module_exit() and kunit_run_all_tests() do it. And the func kfree_at_end() is not used so remove it. After applying this patch, the following memory leak is never detected.

unreferenced object 0xffff8881001de400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd388 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1396, jiffies 4294720452 (age 932.801s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 80 cd 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb69f>] filter_suites_test+0x12f/0x360 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

unreferenced object 0xffff888100da8400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 32 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite2.......... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829e961d>] kunit_filter_suites+0x44d/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888105117878 (size 96): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1398, jiffies 4294720454 (age 781.945s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff a0 ac 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829e9651>] kunit_filter_suites+0x481/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829eb13f>] filter_suites_test_glob_test+0x12f/0x560 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888102c31c00 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 6e 6f 72 6d 61 6c 5f 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 normal_suite.... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cd250 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1404, jiffies 4294720460 (age 781.948s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff 00 a9 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829ea975>] filter_attr_test+0x195/0x5f0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff888104f4e400 (size 1024): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 73 75 69 74 65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 suite........... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817db753>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x53/0x150 [<ffffffff817bd242>] kmemdup+0x22/0x50 [<ffffffff829ecf17>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0xf7/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 unreferenced object 0xffff8881052cc620 (size 192): comm "kunit_try_catch", pid 1408, jiffies 4294720464 (age 781.944s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): a0 85 9e 82 ff ff ff ff c0 a8 7c 84 ff ff ff ff ..........|..... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff817dbad2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150 [<ffffffff829ecfc1>] kunit_filter_attr_tests+0x1a1/0x860 [<ffffffff829e99ff>] kunit_filter_suites+0x82f/0xcc0 [<ffffffff829e9fc3>] filter_attr_skip_test+0x133/0x6e0 [<ffffffff829e802a>] kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x4a/0x90 [<ffffffff81236fc6>] kthread+0x2b6/0x380 [<ffffffff81096afd>] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 [<ffffffff81003511>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20

Fixes: e5857d396f35 ("kunit: flatten kunit_suite*** to kunit_suite** in .kunit_test_suites") Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan ruanjinjie@huawei.com Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309142251.uJ8saAZv-lkp@intel.com/

v2:

Add the memory leak backtrace.

Remove the unused func kfree_at_end() kernel test robot noticed.

We have some plans to reintroduce a similar function later as a general kunit feature, but it's fine removing it here.

...

Update the commit message.

This mostly looks good, but as Rae pointed out, the cleanup won't get called if some of the assertions fail.

Using something more like kfree_at_end(), such as kunit_add_action(test, (kunit_action_t *)kunit_free_suite_set, got) would resolve all of these issues.

(You may need to write a wrapper around kunit_free_suite_set to make it work as an action if you go down that path.)

Right! I do it in v3 and the got is a local struct so there is a little problem. Thank you very much!

...

Cheers, -- David

...
lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index b4f6f96b2844..88d26c9cdce8 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ #include <kunit/test.h> #include <kunit/attributes.h>

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases); @@ -56,7 +55,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -64,6 +62,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test(struct kunit *test)
    /* Contains one element (end is 1 past end) */
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -82,7 +83,6 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "suite2.test2", NULL, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have suite2 */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ static void filter_suites_test_glob_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
Because of the KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0) call above, we know err is nonzero here, so this conditional shouldn't be required. But it also wouldn't be if you used a deferred action to clean up.

...
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -109,10 +112,12 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, "not_found", NULL, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -172,7 +177,6 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we just have normal_suite */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]);
@@ -183,6 +187,9 @@ static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "normal"); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -200,10 +207,12 @@ static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test)
    got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, NULL, &err);
    KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */

  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end,
                          "should be empty to indicate no match");
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) @@ -222,7 +231,6 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, filter, "skip", &err); KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0);
  kfree_at_end(test, got.start);

  /* Validate we have both the slow and normal test */
  KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases);
@@ -233,6 +241,9 @@ static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) /* Now ensure slow is skipped and normal is not */ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status);
  if (!err)
          kunit_free_suite_set(got);
}

static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { @@ -255,21 +266,6 @@ static struct kunit_suite executor_test_suite = { kunit_test_suites(&executor_test_suite);

/* Test helpers */

-/* Use the resource API to register a call to kfree(to_free).

Since we never actually use the resource, it's safe to use on const data.

*/

-static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free) -{
  /* kfree() handles NULL already, but avoid allocating a no-op cleanup. */
  if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(to_free))
          return;
  kunit_add_action(test,
                  (kunit_action_t *)kfree,
                  (void *)to_free);
-}

static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, const char *suite_name, struct kunit_case *test_cases) -- 2.34.1

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230921014008.3887257-5-ruanjin....

457

days inactive

458

days old

linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org

11 comments

participants

tags (0)

participants (4)

David Gow
Jinjie Ruan
Rae Moar
Ruan Jinjie