From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F087C38145 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 03:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 15CD16B0072; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 10BDF6B0073; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:19:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id F17338D0002; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:19:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18B86B0072 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 23:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9622080D91 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 03:19:52 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79883835024.25.BB0D4C4 Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940771200AE for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 03:19:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1662520791; x=1694056791; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RAcEtiEwWb9QLnBtlHAEAi1539PX2fBlXv8J0Kty2F0=; b=UekNZdzSyL5eiLribHxln1rsvh5F7dyBDsBNhGuRd24lN4+5p6rY6JHD mZkWGWoEb47kHKoVyM5lfftzd4h+tXSxkNcuClyHPg+flaPBR0bo7T4jI Wd6dwl+QT7yqUTNmvby0c2e2bPChDmJsWUwgLx7gJegcu6G266XX87VU0 4jN2zRrViWLAOrwILGDq6SeLGOZfMnBaSheZo+zbvUeZYn/jLuhtO72DC fvg5fED3oLaEqnb7C/wg0wix3WaB0o7LRQMtI+1ylI1oX5EYI7T3WhHtD B7P/fsH11QT1YOtSoCWvwMXxP9qeW0MLzWFeLtD3dyIbkdjn5sfg+NWPr Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10462"; a="383063025" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,295,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="383063025" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Sep 2022 20:19:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,295,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="789903282" Received: from sqa-gate.sh.intel.com (HELO robert-ivt.tsp.org) ([10.239.48.212]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2022 20:19:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 09/11] selftests/x86/lam: Add mmap and SYSCALL test cases for linear-address masking From: Robert Hoo To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra Cc: x86@kernel.org, Kostya Serebryany , Andrey Ryabinin , Andrey Konovalov , Alexander Potapenko , Taras Madan , Dmitry Vyukov , "H . J . Lu" , Andi Kleen , Rick Edgecombe , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Weihong Zhang Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 11:19:45 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20220830010104.1282-10-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> References: <20220830010104.1282-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220830010104.1282-10-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1662520792; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=hXIy6jRv6k0euK2yU2Cl4B9BFZFiXHRJhoPqxPk8fS6aW2Bnv72rU7q7mTP8wrBL8UuYk6 IBa+3MEMUlbVKHttyBthaFG2/fIXIyvvjx6n3Qf9QDSR1pbbUEMzN58kq9SqVi5cHEVJ/X q7dqghIhxXL0DSC7jry1/jtngXdyYlc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=UekNZdzS; spf=none (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of robert.hu@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.43) smtp.mailfrom=robert.hu@linux.intel.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF" header.from=intel.com (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1662520792; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=bo5Ij4kaB5dKADV83OfoGdk2yc0YbLko+Jkp1wedmU0=; b=B2OeU+edT1Gp3uPtbXMznqz2PpKuTzGKMcPSAc/OrMVPc8Ggauk2XUZqwpHCOsXIfPmq+m V3Sry8HKUu4FD+qkBq3fpsTvTmzzgPWWP/OESH+9Mq5DfHLpNspo/13CbCYNdsY+Hx5SFY vwaH7LTpj5NjGQFzTM12y49zQtqDRCY= X-Stat-Signature: 8ckbhojxt1ey1je3jqgo5dfpk46u73dw X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 940771200AE Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=UekNZdzS; spf=none (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of robert.hu@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.43) smtp.mailfrom=robert.hu@linux.intel.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF" header.from=intel.com (policy=none) X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-HE-Tag: 1662520791-842001 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 04:01 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > From: Weihong Zhang > > Add mmap and SYSCALL test cases. > > SYSCALL test cases: > > - LAM supports set metadata in high bits 62:57 (LAM_U57) of a user > pointer, pass > the pointer to SYSCALL, SYSCALL can dereference the pointer and > return correct > result. > > - Disable LAM, pass a pointer with metadata in high bits to SYSCALL, > SYSCALL returns -1 (EFAULT). > > MMAP test cases: > > - Enable LAM_U57, MMAP with low address (below bits 47), set > metadata > in high bits of the address, dereference the address should be > allowed. > > - Enable LAM_U57, MMAP with high address (above bits 47), set > metadata > in high bits of the address, dereference the address should be > allowed. > > Signed-off-by: Weihong Zhang > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > --- > tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 135 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c > index 900a3a0fb709..b88e007ee0a3 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > > @@ -29,11 +30,18 @@ > /* Specified test function bits */ > #define FUNC_MALLOC 0x1 > #define FUNC_BITS 0x2 > +#define FUNC_MMAP 0x4 > +#define FUNC_SYSCALL 0x8 > > -#define TEST_MASK 0x3 > +#define TEST_MASK 0xf > + > +#define LOW_ADDR (0x1UL << 30) > +#define HIGH_ADDR (0x3UL << 48) > > #define MALLOC_LEN 32 > > +#define PAGE_SIZE (4 << 10) > + > struct testcases { > unsigned int later; > int expected; /* 2: SIGSEGV Error; 1: other errors */ > @@ -49,6 +57,7 @@ jmp_buf segv_env; > static void segv_handler(int sig) > { > ksft_print_msg("Get segmentation fault(%d).", sig); > + > siglongjmp(segv_env, 1); > } > > @@ -61,6 +70,16 @@ static inline int cpu_has_lam(void) > return (cpuinfo[0] & (1 << 26)); > } > > +/* Check 5-level page table feature in CPUID.(EAX=07H, > ECX=00H):ECX.[bit 16] */ > +static inline int cpu_has_la57(void) > +{ > + unsigned int cpuinfo[4]; > + > + __cpuid_count(0x7, 0, cpuinfo[0], cpuinfo[1], cpuinfo[2], > cpuinfo[3]); > + > + return (cpuinfo[2] & (1 << 16)); > +} > + > /* > * Set tagged address and read back untag mask. > * check if the untagged mask is expected. > @@ -213,6 +232,68 @@ static int handle_malloc(struct testcases *test) > return ret; > } > > +static int handle_mmap(struct testcases *test) > +{ > + void *ptr; > + unsigned int flags = MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED; > + int ret = 0; > + > + if (test->later == 0 && test->lam != 0) > + if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) > + return 1; > + > + ptr = mmap((void *)test->addr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ | > PROT_WRITE, > + flags, -1, 0); > + if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) { > + if (test->addr == HIGH_ADDR) > + if (!cpu_has_la57()) > + return 3; /* unsupport LA57 */ I think here return 3 to indicate skip cases. Perhaps you can enable skip case like this? Just FYI, I'm not familiar with selftests yet. @@ -321,8 +323,10 @@ static int handle_mmap(struct testcases *test) flags, -1, 0); if (ptr == MAP_FAILED) { if (test->addr == HIGH_ADDR) - if (!cpu_has_la57()) + if (!cpu_has_la57()) { + perror("Unsupport LA57. Skip"); return 3; /* unsupport LA57 */ + } return 1; } @@ -746,12 +750,16 @@ static void run_test(struct testcases *test, int count) /* fork a process to run test case */ ret = fork_test(t); + tests_cnt++; + if (ret == 3) { + ksft_test_result_skip(t->msg); + continue; + } if (ret != 0) ret = (t->expected == ret); else ret = !(t->expected); - tests_cnt++; ksft_test_result(ret, t->msg); } } > + return 1; > + } > + > + if (test->later != 0 && test->lam != 0) > + if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) > + ret = 1; > + > + if (ret == 0) { > + if (sigsetjmp(segv_env, 1) == 0) { > + signal(SIGSEGV, segv_handler); > + ret = handle_lam_test(ptr, test->lam); > + } else { > + ret = 2; > + } > + } > + > + munmap(ptr, PAGE_SIZE); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int handle_syscall(struct testcases *test) > +{ > + struct utsname unme, *pu; > + int ret = 0; > + > + if (test->later == 0 && test->lam != 0) > + if (set_lam(test->lam) != 0) > + return 1; > + > + if (sigsetjmp(segv_env, 1) == 0) { > + signal(SIGSEGV, segv_handler); > + pu = (struct utsname *)set_metadata((uint64_t)&unme, > test->lam); > + ret = uname(pu); > + if (ret < 0) > + ret = 1; > + } else { > + ret = 2; > + } > + > + if (test->later != 0 && test->lam != 0) > + if (set_lam(test->lam) != -1 && ret == 0) > + ret = 1; > + > + return ret; > +} > + > static int fork_test(struct testcases *test) > { > int ret, child_ret; > @@ -268,7 +349,6 @@ static struct testcases malloc_cases[] = { > }, > }; > > - > static struct testcases bits_cases[] = { > { > .test_func = handle_max_bits, > @@ -276,11 +356,54 @@ static struct testcases bits_cases[] = { > }, > }; > > +static struct testcases syscall_cases[] = { > + { > + .later = 0, > + .lam = LAM_U57_BITS, > + .test_func = handle_syscall, > + .msg = "SYSCALL: LAM_U57. syscall with metadata\n", > + }, > + { > + .later = 1, > + .expected = 1, > + .lam = LAM_U57_BITS, > + .test_func = handle_syscall, > + .msg = "SYSCALL:[Negative] Disable LAM. Dereferencing > pointer with metadata.\n", > + }, > +}; > + > +static struct testcases mmap_cases[] = { > + { > + .later = 1, > + .expected = 0, > + .lam = LAM_U57_BITS, > + .addr = HIGH_ADDR, > + .test_func = handle_mmap, > + .msg = "MMAP: First mmap high address, then set > LAM_U57.\n", > + }, > + { > + .later = 0, > + .expected = 0, > + .lam = LAM_U57_BITS, > + .addr = HIGH_ADDR, > + .test_func = handle_mmap, > + .msg = "MMAP: First LAM_U57, then High address.\n", > + }, > + { > + .later = 0, > + .expected = 0, > + .lam = LAM_U57_BITS, > + .addr = LOW_ADDR, > + .test_func = handle_mmap, > + .msg = "MMAP: First LAM_U57, then Low address.\n", > + }, > +}; > + > static void cmd_help(void) > { > printf("usage: lam [-h] [-t test list]\n"); > printf("\t-t test list: run tests specified in the test list, > default:0x%x\n", TEST_MASK); > - printf("\t\t0x1:malloc; 0x2:max_bits;\n"); > + printf("\t\t0x1:malloc; 0x2:max_bits; 0x4:mmap; > 0x8:syscall.\n"); > printf("\t-h: help\n"); > } > > @@ -320,6 +443,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > if (tests & FUNC_BITS) > run_test(bits_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(bits_cases)); > > + if (tests & FUNC_MMAP) > + run_test(mmap_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(mmap_cases)); > + > + if (tests & FUNC_SYSCALL) > + run_test(syscall_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(syscall_cases)); > + > ksft_set_plan(tests_cnt); > > return ksft_exit_pass();