diff mbox series

[v2,16/31] selftests/mm: UFFDIO_API test

Message ID 20230412164257.328375-1-peterx@redhat.com
State New
Headers
Series selftests/mm: Split / Refactor userfault test |

Commit Message

Peter Xu April 12, 2023, 4:42 p.m. UTC 
  Add one simple test for UFFDIO_API.  With that, I also added a bunch of
small but handy helpers along the way.

Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Axel Rasmussen April 12, 2023, 7:47 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:43 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Add one simple test for UFFDIO_API.  With that, I also added a bunch of
> small but handy helpers along the way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> index 6857388783be..bb492c258486 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> @@ -9,9 +9,116 @@
>
>  #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
>
> +static void uffd_test_report(void)
> +{
> +       printf("Userfaults unit tests: pass=%u, skip=%u, fail=%u (total=%u)\n",
> +              ksft_get_pass_cnt(),
> +              ksft_get_xskip_cnt(),
> +              ksft_get_fail_cnt(),
> +              ksft_test_num());
> +}
> +
> +static void uffd_test_pass(void)
> +{
> +       printf("done\n");
> +       ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
> +}
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_start(...)  do {            \
> +               printf("Testing ");             \
> +               printf(__VA_ARGS__);            \
> +               printf("... ");                 \
> +               fflush(stdout);                 \
> +       } while (0)
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_fail(...)  do {             \
> +               printf("failed [reason: ");     \
> +               printf(__VA_ARGS__);            \
> +               printf("]\n");                  \
> +               ksft_inc_fail_cnt();            \
> +       } while (0)
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_skip(...)  do {             \
> +               printf("skipped [reason: ");    \
> +               printf(__VA_ARGS__);            \
> +               printf("]\n");                  \
> +               ksft_inc_xskip_cnt();           \
> +       } while (0)

Some of this is duplicating what's in kselftest_harness.h - e.g.
assertions, printing test summary, keeping track of pass/fail/skip
counts, etc.

I wonder how you feel about using the standard harness? E.g. is the
plan to do this (more straightforward?) refactor first, and then
switch later? Or is there some reason it can't be used?

> +
> +/*
> + * Returns 1 if specific userfaultfd supported, 0 otherwise.  Note, we'll
> + * return 1 even if some test failed as long as uffd supported, because in
> + * that case we still want to proceed with the rest uffd unit tests.
> + */
> +static int test_uffd_api(bool use_dev)
> +{
> +       struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
> +       int uffd;
> +
> +       uffd_test_start("UFFDIO_API (with %s)",
> +                       use_dev ? "/dev/userfaultfd" : "syscall");
> +
> +       if (use_dev)
> +               uffd = uffd_open_dev(UFFD_FLAGS);
> +       else
> +               uffd = uffd_open_sys(UFFD_FLAGS);
> +       if (uffd < 0) {
> +               uffd_test_skip("cannot open userfaultfd handle");
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Test wrong UFFD_API */
> +       uffdio_api.api = 0xab;
> +       uffdio_api.features = 0;
> +       if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +               uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong api but didn't");
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Test wrong feature bit */
> +       uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> +       uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(63);
> +       if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +               uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong feature but didn't");
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Test normal UFFDIO_API */
> +       uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> +       uffdio_api.features = 0;
> +       if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api)) {
> +               uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should succeed but failed");
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Test double requests of UFFDIO_API with a random feature set */
> +       uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(0);
> +       if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +               uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should reject initialized uffd");
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       uffd_test_pass();
> +out:
> +       close(uffd);
> +       /* We have a valid uffd handle */
> +       return 1;
> +}
> +
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> -       return KSFT_PASS;
> +       int has_uffd;
> +
> +       has_uffd = test_uffd_api(false);
> +       has_uffd |= test_uffd_api(true);
> +
> +       if (!has_uffd) {
> +               printf("Userfaultfd not supported or unprivileged, skip all tests\n");
> +               exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> +       }
> +       uffd_test_report();
> +
> +       return ksft_get_fail_cnt() ? KSFT_FAIL : KSFT_PASS;
>  }
>
>  #else /* __NR_userfaultfd */
> --
> 2.39.1
>
Peter Xu April 12, 2023, 8:08 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:47:39PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > +#define  uffd_test_fail(...)  do {             \
> > +               printf("failed [reason: ");     \
> > +               printf(__VA_ARGS__);            \
> > +               printf("]\n");                  \
> > +               ksft_inc_fail_cnt();            \
> > +       } while (0)
> > +
> > +#define  uffd_test_skip(...)  do {             \
> > +               printf("skipped [reason: ");    \
> > +               printf(__VA_ARGS__);            \
> > +               printf("]\n");                  \
> > +               ksft_inc_xskip_cnt();           \
> > +       } while (0)
> 
> Some of this is duplicating what's in kselftest_harness.h - e.g.
> assertions, printing test summary, keeping track of pass/fail/skip
> counts, etc.
> 
> I wonder how you feel about using the standard harness? E.g. is the
> plan to do this (more straightforward?) refactor first, and then
> switch later? Or is there some reason it can't be used?

David asked similar question.  I wanted to arrange the output mostly for:
(1) one test per line, (2) dump test name before anything (even failing).
The 2nd one is important for uffd tests since it uses err() which bails out
immediately on unexpected failures (comparing to uffd_test_fail).

To achieve that I found I can use ksft_inc_xskip_cnt() etc. so I kept using
the counters in the harness but leave the print format on my own.  I assume
that's also why these were exported in kselftests.h so when tests want to
have customized output it can still use the counters.

Thanks,
Mike Rapoport April 20, 2023, 10:54 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:42:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> Add one simple test for UFFDIO_API.  With that, I also added a bunch of
> small but handy helpers along the way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> index 6857388783be..bb492c258486 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
> @@ -9,9 +9,116 @@
> 
>  #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
> 
> +static void uffd_test_report(void)
> +{
> +	printf("Userfaults unit tests: pass=%u, skip=%u, fail=%u (total=%u)\n",
> +	       ksft_get_pass_cnt(),
> +	       ksft_get_xskip_cnt(),
> +	       ksft_get_fail_cnt(),
> +	       ksft_test_num());
> +}
> +
> +static void uffd_test_pass(void)
> +{
> +	printf("done\n");
> +	ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
> +}
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_start(...)  do {		\
> +		printf("Testing ");		\
> +		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
> +		printf("... ");			\
> +		fflush(stdout);			\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_fail(...)  do {		\
> +		printf("failed [reason: ");	\
> +		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
> +		printf("]\n");			\
> +		ksft_inc_fail_cnt();		\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +#define  uffd_test_skip(...)  do {		\
> +		printf("skipped [reason: ");	\
> +		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
> +		printf("]\n");			\
> +		ksft_inc_xskip_cnt();		\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +/*
> + * Returns 1 if specific userfaultfd supported, 0 otherwise.  Note, we'll
> + * return 1 even if some test failed as long as uffd supported, because in
> + * that case we still want to proceed with the rest uffd unit tests.
> + */
> +static int test_uffd_api(bool use_dev)
> +{
> +	struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
> +	int uffd;
> +
> +	uffd_test_start("UFFDIO_API (with %s)",
> +			use_dev ? "/dev/userfaultfd" : "syscall");
> +
> +	if (use_dev)
> +		uffd = uffd_open_dev(UFFD_FLAGS);
> +	else
> +		uffd = uffd_open_sys(UFFD_FLAGS);
> +	if (uffd < 0) {
> +		uffd_test_skip("cannot open userfaultfd handle");
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Test wrong UFFD_API */
> +	uffdio_api.api = 0xab;
> +	uffdio_api.features = 0;
> +	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong api but didn't");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Test wrong feature bit */
> +	uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> +	uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(63);
> +	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong feature but didn't");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Test normal UFFDIO_API */
> +	uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
> +	uffdio_api.features = 0;
> +	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api)) {
> +		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should succeed but failed");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Test double requests of UFFDIO_API with a random feature set */
> +	uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(0);
> +	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
> +		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should reject initialized uffd");
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	uffd_test_pass();
> +out:
> +	close(uffd);
> +	/* We have a valid uffd handle */
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> -	return KSFT_PASS;
> +	int has_uffd;
> +
> +	has_uffd = test_uffd_api(false);
> +	has_uffd |= test_uffd_api(true);
> +
> +	if (!has_uffd) {
> +		printf("Userfaultfd not supported or unprivileged, skip all tests\n");
> +		exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> +	}
> +	uffd_test_report();
> +
> +	return ksft_get_fail_cnt() ? KSFT_FAIL : KSFT_PASS;
>  }
> 
>  #else /* __NR_userfaultfd */
> -- 
> 2.39.1
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
index 6857388783be..bb492c258486 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests.c
@@ -9,9 +9,116 @@ 
 
 #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
 
+static void uffd_test_report(void)
+{
+	printf("Userfaults unit tests: pass=%u, skip=%u, fail=%u (total=%u)\n",
+	       ksft_get_pass_cnt(),
+	       ksft_get_xskip_cnt(),
+	       ksft_get_fail_cnt(),
+	       ksft_test_num());
+}
+
+static void uffd_test_pass(void)
+{
+	printf("done\n");
+	ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
+}
+
+#define  uffd_test_start(...)  do {		\
+		printf("Testing ");		\
+		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
+		printf("... ");			\
+		fflush(stdout);			\
+	} while (0)
+
+#define  uffd_test_fail(...)  do {		\
+		printf("failed [reason: ");	\
+		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
+		printf("]\n");			\
+		ksft_inc_fail_cnt();		\
+	} while (0)
+
+#define  uffd_test_skip(...)  do {		\
+		printf("skipped [reason: ");	\
+		printf(__VA_ARGS__);		\
+		printf("]\n");			\
+		ksft_inc_xskip_cnt();		\
+	} while (0)
+
+/*
+ * Returns 1 if specific userfaultfd supported, 0 otherwise.  Note, we'll
+ * return 1 even if some test failed as long as uffd supported, because in
+ * that case we still want to proceed with the rest uffd unit tests.
+ */
+static int test_uffd_api(bool use_dev)
+{
+	struct uffdio_api uffdio_api;
+	int uffd;
+
+	uffd_test_start("UFFDIO_API (with %s)",
+			use_dev ? "/dev/userfaultfd" : "syscall");
+
+	if (use_dev)
+		uffd = uffd_open_dev(UFFD_FLAGS);
+	else
+		uffd = uffd_open_sys(UFFD_FLAGS);
+	if (uffd < 0) {
+		uffd_test_skip("cannot open userfaultfd handle");
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	/* Test wrong UFFD_API */
+	uffdio_api.api = 0xab;
+	uffdio_api.features = 0;
+	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
+		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong api but didn't");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	/* Test wrong feature bit */
+	uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
+	uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(63);
+	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
+		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should fail with wrong feature but didn't");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	/* Test normal UFFDIO_API */
+	uffdio_api.api = UFFD_API;
+	uffdio_api.features = 0;
+	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api)) {
+		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should succeed but failed");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	/* Test double requests of UFFDIO_API with a random feature set */
+	uffdio_api.features = BIT_ULL(0);
+	if (ioctl(uffd, UFFDIO_API, &uffdio_api) == 0) {
+		uffd_test_fail("UFFDIO_API should reject initialized uffd");
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	uffd_test_pass();
+out:
+	close(uffd);
+	/* We have a valid uffd handle */
+	return 1;
+}
+
 int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
-	return KSFT_PASS;
+	int has_uffd;
+
+	has_uffd = test_uffd_api(false);
+	has_uffd |= test_uffd_api(true);
+
+	if (!has_uffd) {
+		printf("Userfaultfd not supported or unprivileged, skip all tests\n");
+		exit(KSFT_SKIP);
+	}
+	uffd_test_report();
+
+	return ksft_get_fail_cnt() ? KSFT_FAIL : KSFT_PASS;
 }
 
 #else /* __NR_userfaultfd */