From: Avinesh Kumar <akumar@suse.de>
To: mdoucha@suse.cz, ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] mmap04.c: Avoid vma merging
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:55:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240123165539.32514-1-akumar@suse.de> (raw)
We hit a scenario where new mapping was merged with existing mapping of
same permission and the return address from the mmap was hidden in the
merged mapping in /proc/self/maps, causing the test to fail.
To avoid this, we first create a 2-page mapping with the different
permissions, and then remap the 2nd page with the perms being tested.
Signed-off-by: Avinesh Kumar <akumar@suse.de>
Reported-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/mmap/mmap04.c | 49 +++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mmap/mmap04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mmap/mmap04.c
index f6f4f7c98..f0f87b7f5 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mmap/mmap04.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mmap/mmap04.c
@@ -17,28 +17,28 @@
#include "tst_test.h"
#include <stdio.h>
-#define MMAPSIZE 1024
-static char *addr;
+static char *addr1;
+static char *addr2;
static struct tcase {
int prot;
int flags;
char *exp_perms;
} tcases[] = {
- {PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "---p"},
- {PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "---s"},
- {PROT_READ, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "r--p"},
- {PROT_READ, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "r--s"},
- {PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "-w-p"},
- {PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "-w-s"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "rw-p"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "rw-s"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "r-xp"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "r-xs"},
- {PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "-wxp"},
- {PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "-wxs"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, "rwxp"},
- {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, "rwxs"}
+ {PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "---p"},
+ {PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "---s"},
+ {PROT_READ, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "r--p"},
+ {PROT_READ, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "r--s"},
+ {PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "-w-p"},
+ {PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "-w-s"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "rw-p"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "rw-s"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "r-xp"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "r-xs"},
+ {PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "-wxp"},
+ {PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "-wxs"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED, "rwxp"},
+ {PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, "rwxs"}
};
static void run(unsigned int i)
@@ -47,10 +47,21 @@ static void run(unsigned int i)
char addr_str[20];
char perms[8];
char fmt[1024];
+ unsigned int pagesize;
- addr = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, MMAPSIZE, tc->prot, tc->flags, -1, 0);
+ pagesize = SAFE_SYSCONF(_SC_PAGESIZE);
- sprintf(addr_str, "%" PRIxPTR, (uintptr_t)addr);
+ /* To avoid new mapping getting merged with existing mappings, we first
+ create a 2-page mapping with the different permissions, and then remap
+ the 2nd page with the perms being tested. */
+ if ((tc->prot == PROT_NONE) && (tc->flags == (MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_FIXED)))
+ addr1 = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, pagesize * 2, PROT_READ, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, -1, 0);
+ else
+ addr1 = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, pagesize * 2, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
+
+ addr2 = SAFE_MMAP(addr1 + pagesize, pagesize, tc->prot, tc->flags, -1, 0);
+
+ sprintf(addr_str, "%" PRIxPTR, (uintptr_t)addr2);
sprintf(fmt, "%s-%%*x %%s", addr_str);
SAFE_FILE_LINES_SCANF("/proc/self/maps", fmt, perms);
@@ -61,7 +72,7 @@ static void run(unsigned int i)
tc->exp_perms, perms);
}
- SAFE_MUNMAP(addr, MMAPSIZE);
+ SAFE_MUNMAP(addr1, pagesize * 2);
}
static struct tst_test test = {
--
2.43.0
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next reply other threads:[~2024-01-23 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 16:55 Avinesh Kumar [this message]
2024-01-24 11:56 ` [LTP] [PATCH] mmap04.c: Avoid vma merging Martin Doucha
2024-01-24 13:26 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] " Avinesh Kumar
2024-01-24 16:23 ` Martin Doucha
2024-01-24 17:05 ` Petr Vorel
2024-01-25 8:14 ` Avinesh Kumar
2024-01-25 8:25 ` Petr Vorel
2024-01-24 14:36 ` [LTP] [PATCH] " Avinesh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240123165539.32514-1-akumar@suse.de \
--to=akumar@suse.de \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mdoucha@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox