fanotify: Add test for permission event destruction
PATCH v2 1/1 fanotify: Add test for permission event destruction
Test whether kernel's notification subsystem gets stuck when some fanotify permission events are not responded to. Also test destruction of fanotify instance while there are outstanding permission events. This can result in hanging of processes indefinitely in kernel or in kernel crashes.
Kernel crashes should be fixed by commit 96d41019e3ac "fanotify: fix list corruption in fanotify_get_response()", kernel hangs by "fanotify:
Release SRCU lock when waiting for userspace response" (not yet landed upstream).
--- runtest/syscalls | 1 + testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 265 insertions(+) create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c
OK, I finally got to porting the fanotify permission events test to new LTP api. Here is the result.
runtest/syscalls +1 -0
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ fanotify03 fanotify03 fanotify04 fanotify04 fanotify05 fanotify05 fanotify06 fanotify06 +fanotify07 fanotify07 ioperm01 ioperm01 ioperm02 ioperm02
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +264 -0
264 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.10.2
PATCH v2 1/1 fanotify: Add test for permission event destruction
Hi!
Quoted 10 lines
Test whether kernel's notification subsystem gets stuck when some fanotify permission events are not responded to. Also test destruction of fanotify instance while there are outstanding permission events. This can result in hanging of processes indefinitely in kernel or in kernel crashes.
Kernel crashes should be fixed by commit
96d41019e3ac"fanotify: fix list corruption infanotify_get_response()", kernel hangs by "fanotify:
Release SRCU lock when waiting for userspace response" (not yet landed upstream).
Ideally the testcase should include both commit ids in the test description as well. So either we wait until the fix gets into mainline, or add it later.
Quoted 28 lines
Signed-off-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>--- runtest/syscalls | 1 + testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 265 insertions(+) create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.cOK, I finally got to porting the fanotify permission events test to new LTP api. Here is the result.
runtest/syscalls +1
-0@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ fanotify03 fanotify03 fanotify04 fanotify04 fanotify05 fanotify05 fanotify06 fanotify06 +fanotify07 fanotify07 ioperm01 ioperm01 ioperm02 ioperm02testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +0
-0
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 6
Quoted 6 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +6
-0@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ +/* +* Copyright (c) 2016 SUSE. All Rights Reserved. +* +* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it +* under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as +* published by the Free Software Foundation.
We slightly prefer GPLv2+, i.e. the one with any later clause.
Quoted 29 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +29
-0+* This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but +* WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. +* +* Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is +* free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement +* or the like. Any license provided herein, whether implied or +* otherwise, applies only to this software file. Patent licenses, if +* any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with +* other software, or any other product whatsoever. +* +* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along +* with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation, Inc., +* 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. +* +* Started by Jan Kara <[email protected]> +* +* DESCRIPTION +* Check that fanotify permission events are handled properly on instance +* destruction. +*/ +#define _GNU_SOURCE +#include "config.h" + +#include <stdio.h> +#include <unistd.h> +#include <stdlib.h> +#include <sys/stat.h> +#include <sys/types.h>
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 46
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+#include <sys/fcntl.h> +#include <sys/wait.h> +#include <errno.h> +#include <string.h> +#include <signal.h> +#include <sys/syscall.h> +#include "tst_test.h" +#include "linux_syscall_numbers.h" +#include "fanotify.h" +#include "tst_safe_macros.h"
^
This header is included from tst_test.h
Quoted 51 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +51
-0+#if defined(HAVE_SYS_FANOTIFY_H ) +#include <sys/fanotify.h> + +#define BUF_SIZE 256 +static char fname[BUF_SIZE ]; +static char buf[BUF_SIZE ]; +static volatile int fd_notify; + +/* Number of children we start */ +#define MAX_CHILDREN 16 +static pid_t child_pid[MAX_CHILDREN ]; + +/* Number of children we don't respond to before stopping */ +#define MAX_NOT_RESPONDED 4 + +static void generate_events (void ) +{ +int fd; + +/* +* generate sequence of events +*/ +if ((fd =open (fname,O_RDWR |O_CREAT ,0700 )) ==-1 ) +exit (1 ); + +/* Run until killed... */ +while (1 ) { +lseek (fd,0 ,SEEK_SET ); +if (read (fd, buf,BUF_SIZE ) ==-1 ) +exit (3 ); + } +} + +static void run_children (void ) +{ +int i; + +for (i =0 ; i <MAX_CHILDREN ; i++) { + child_pid[i] =SAFE_FORK (); +if (!child_pid[i]) { +/* Child will generate events now */ +close (fd_notify); +generate_events (); +exit (0 ); + } + } +} + +static int stop_children (void ) +{ +int child_ret;
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 108
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+int i, ret =0 ; + +for (i =0 ; i <MAX_CHILDREN ; i++) +kill (child_pid[i],SIGKILL ); + +for (i =0 ; i <MAX_CHILDREN ; i++) { +if (waitpid (child_pid[i], &child_ret,0 ) <0 ) { +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO , +"waitpid(-1, &child_ret, 0) failed" ); + }
We have SAFE_KILL() and SAFE_WAITPID() as well, can you please use them here as well?
Quoted 45 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +45
-0+if (!WIFSIGNALED (child_ret)) + ret =1 ; + } + +return ret; +} + +static int setup_instance (void ) +{ +int fd; + +if ((fd =fanotify_init (FAN_CLASS_CONTENT ,O_RDONLY )) <0 ) { +if (errno ==ENOSYS ) { +tst_brk (TCONF , +"fanotify is not configured in this kernel." ); + }else { +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO ,"fanotify_init failed" ); + } + } + +if (fanotify_mark (fd,FAN_MARK_ADD ,FAN_ACCESS_PERM ,AT_FDCWD , + fname) <0 ) { +close (fd); +if (errno ==EINVAL ) { +tst_brk (TCONF |TERRNO , +"CONFIG_FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS not " +"configured in kernel?" ); + }else { +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO , +"fanotify_mark (%d, FAN_MARK_ADD, FAN_ACCESS_PERM, " +"AT_FDCWD, %s) failed." , fd, fname); + } + } + +return fd; +} + +static void loose_fanotify_events (void ) +{ +int ret; +int not_responded =0 ; + +/* +* check events +*/
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 163
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+while (not_responded <MAX_NOT_RESPONDED ) { +struct fanotify_event_metadata event; +struct fanotify_response resp; + +/* Get more events */ + ret =read (fd_notify, &event,sizeof (event)); +if (ret <0 ) { +tst_brk (TBROK ,"read(%d, &event, %zu) failed" , + fd_notify,sizeof (event)); + }
We have SAFE_READ() as well.
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 167
Quoted 4 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +4
-0+if (ret ==0 ) { +tst_brk (TBROK ,"premature EOF while reading from " +"fanotify fd" ); + }
Shouldn't we be more strict here and do if (ret != sizeof(event)) ?
Quoted 12 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +12
-0+if (event.mask !=FAN_ACCESS_PERM ) { +tst_res (TFAIL , +"get event: mask=%llx (expected %llx) " +"pid=%u fd=%u" , + (unsigned long long )event.mask, + (unsigned long long )FAN_ACCESS_PERM , + (unsigned )event.pid, event.fd); +break ; + } + +/* +* We respond to permission event with 95% percent
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 190
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+* probability. */ +if (random () %100 >5 ) { +/* Write response to permission event */ + resp.fd = event.fd; + resp.response =FAN_ALLOW ; +SAFE_WRITE (1 , fd_notify, &resp,sizeof (resp)); + }else { + not_responded++; + } +close (event.fd);
We may use SAFE_CLOSE() here as well, just to make sure that we happened to close the fd correctly...
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+ } +} + +static void test_fanotify (void ) +{ +int newfd; +int ret; + + fd_notify =setup_instance (); +run_children ();
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 210
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+loose_fanotify_events (); + +/* +* Create and destroy another instance. This may hang if +* unanswered fanotify events block notification subsystem. +*/ + newfd =setup_instance (); +if (close (newfd)) { +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO ,"close(%d) failed" , newfd); + }
SAFE_CLOSE() here as well.
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 221
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+tst_res (TPASS ,"second instance destroyed successfully" ); + +/* +* Now destroy the fanotify instance while there are permission +* events at various stages of processing. This may provoke +* kernel hangs or crashes. +*/ +if (close (fd_notify)) { +tst_brk (TBROK |TERRNO ,"close(%d) failed" , fd_notify); + }
And here.
Quoted 7 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +7
-0+ fd_notify =-1 ; + + ret =stop_children (); +if (ret) +tst_res (TFAIL ,"child exited for unexpected reason" ); +else +tst_res (TPASS ,"all children exited successfully" );
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 238
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+} + +static void setup (void ) +{ +int fd; + +sprintf (fname,"fname_%d" ,getpid ()); + fd =SAFE_OPEN (fname,O_CREAT |O_RDWR ,0644 ); +SAFE_WRITE (1 , fd, fname,1 ); +SAFE_CLOSE (fd);
You can do just SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(fname, "%s", fname); here.
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 244
Quoted 6 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +6
-0+} + +static void cleanup (void ) +{ +if (fd_notify >0 &&close (fd_notify)) +tst_res (TWARN |TERRNO ,"close(%d) failed" , fd_notify);
And since commit:
commit 6440c5d0d1509a28c8d48b5ab3fd9d707f3ec36f
Author: Cyril Hrubis <[email protected]> Date: Thu Feb 9 15:41:24 2017 +0100
newlib: Allow SAFE_MACROS to be called from cleanup
We can use SAFE_CLOSE() in test cleanup as well, so we can just do:
if (fd_notify > 0)
SAFE_CLOSE(fd_notify);
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+} + +static struct tst_test test = { + .tid ="fanotify07" , + .test_all = test_fanotify, + .setup = setup, + .cleanup = cleanup, + .needs_tmpdir =1 , + .forks_child =1 , + .needs_root =1 ,
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c line 264
Quoted 10 lines
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify07.c new file +10
-0+}; + +#else + +int main (void ) +{ +tst_brk (TCONF ,"system doesn't have required fanotify support" ); +} + +#endif
Otherwise the test looks good.
Signature · 2 lines
Cyril Hrubis [email protected]
PATCH v2 1/1 fanotify: Add test for permission event destruction
Quoted 7 lines · Cyril Hrubis
Hi!
Quoted 6 lines
Test whether kernel's notification subsystem gets stuck when some fanotify permission events are not responded to. Also test destruction of fanotify instance while there are outstanding permission events. This can result in hanging of processes indefinitely in kernel or in kernel crashes.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Kernel crashes should be fixed by commit
96d41019e3ac"fanotify: fix list corruption infanotify_get_response()", kernel hangs by "fanotify:
Release SRCU lock when waiting for userspace response" (not yet landed upstream).Ideally the testcase should include both commit ids in the test description as well. So either we wait until the fix gets into mainline, or add it later.
OK, I've addressed all other remarks and will wait with the testcase until the fix gets merged.
Honza
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR