* Re: [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/damon/tests/core-kunit: catch test failure in test_merge_regions_of()
2026-09-09 3:32 ` [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/damon/tests/core-kunit: catch test failure in test_merge_regions_of() SJ Park
@ 2026-09-09 3:41 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-09 20:26 ` Sasha Levin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-09-09 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: SJ Park; +Cc: damon
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the patch is an incomplete fix. It addresses an unhandled KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ failure in `damon_test_merge_regions_of()` that causes a NULL pointer dereference, but identical unhandled test failures exist in four other test functions across the DAMON kunit test suite, leading to kernel panics and out-of-bounds memory accesses.
--
commit a4abe0e36a0fa52342ceb358e02a1259ba2ec1d5
Author: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
Subject: mm/damon/tests/core-kunit: catch test failure in test_merge_regions_of()
This commit fixes a potential NULL pointer dereference in the DAMON kunit
tests by aborting the test execution in damon_test_merge_regions_of() if
the initial KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() expectation is not met.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260715031002.108504-3-sj@kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260710144937.26981-1-sj@kernel.org [1]
> diff --git a/mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h b/mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h
> index d7737f5df6688..1053d7acd8e45 100644
> --- a/mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h
> +++ b/mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h
> @@ -264,11 +264,14 @@ static void damon_test_merge_regions_of(struct kunit *test)
> damon_merge_regions_of(t, 9, 9999);
> /* 0-112, 114-130, 130-156, 156-170 */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, damon_nr_regions(t), 5u);
> + if (damon_nr_regions(t) != 5)
> + goto out;
> for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> r = __nth_region_of(t, i);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.start, saddrs[i]);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.end, eaddrs[i]);
> }
> +out:
> damon_free_target(t);
> }
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but this fix appears incomplete.
While it addresses the unhandled test failure in damon_test_merge_regions_of(),
would it make sense to apply similar bailouts to other test functions in the
suite that have identical unhandled expectations?
For example, in mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h:damos_test_filter_out():
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, damon_nr_regions(t), 2);
r2 = damon_next_region(r);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r2->ar.start, DAMON_MIN_REGION * 2);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r2->ar.end, DAMON_MIN_REGION * 4);
damon_destroy_region(r2, t);
If the region fails to split, damon_nr_regions(t) remains 1, and
damon_next_region(r) evaluates to a bogus pointer. Calling
damon_destroy_region() will attempt to free this invalid address, causing
a kernel panic.
Similarly, in mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h:damon_test_split_at():
damon_split_region_at(t, r, 25);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.start, 0ul);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.end, 25ul);
r_new = damon_next_region(r);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r_new->ar.start, 25ul);
If damon_split_region_at() fails, damon_next_region() returns an
out-of-bounds pointer, leading to an out-of-bounds read when accessing
r_new->ar.start.
In mm/damon/tests/core-kunit.h:damon_test_set_regions():
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, damon_nr_regions(t), 3);
damon_for_each_region(r, t) {
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.start, expects[expect_idx++]);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.end, expects[expect_idx++]);
}
If the region count exceeds expectations (>3), expect_idx overflows the
6-element expects stack array, leading to a stack buffer out-of-bounds
read.
Finally, in mm/damon/tests/vaddr-kunit.h:damon_do_test_apply_three_regions():
for (i = 0; i < nr_expected / 2; i++) {
r = __nth_region_of(t, i);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.start, expected[i * 2]);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->ar.end, expected[i * 2 + 1]);
}
If the resulting regions are fewer than expected, __nth_region_of() returns
NULL, leading to a direct NULL pointer dereference.
Are there plans to catch these other unhandled test failures in a follow-up
patch?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909033217.123340-1-sj@kernel.org?part=1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread