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 picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0038BC46CD2 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983E13CFB3F for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:36:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FA5F3CEE6A for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:36:32 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.de (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=akumar@suse.de; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60AAB600798 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:36:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9027E2200D; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:36:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706106990; h=from:from:reply-to: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; bh=U48GhGjTaGvY746EE7JSAuVTIxaEh/g3WDI4z+6SK74=; b=EBfl+/qnVrcgPDVMg41zhyisXvq+yHw+rwGNMt6XJDCe+dPWE9O2MlielLqyQ3xbqzB0ej csTE5/VIGzC7i0a/xZ+rnfDcj4gpJZpSnL6K2xDn3uj+3jmqqglJQX26G+t0pGgA/1dfsr G4MhgZtrjkyntiE65NsgCIwKui+akoU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706106990; h=from:from:reply-to: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; bh=U48GhGjTaGvY746EE7JSAuVTIxaEh/g3WDI4z+6SK74=; b=aNwvDvmyLMxe9wNcyY2gsNupis552OFIWzh3vjTGxo9uu+rDMgQWjZ0lVaQ0G9Ti4vEBdJ yaS6cz2AjQJ/kPCQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1706106990; h=from:from:reply-to: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; bh=U48GhGjTaGvY746EE7JSAuVTIxaEh/g3WDI4z+6SK74=; b=EBfl+/qnVrcgPDVMg41zhyisXvq+yHw+rwGNMt6XJDCe+dPWE9O2MlielLqyQ3xbqzB0ej csTE5/VIGzC7i0a/xZ+rnfDcj4gpJZpSnL6K2xDn3uj+3jmqqglJQX26G+t0pGgA/1dfsr G4MhgZtrjkyntiE65NsgCIwKui+akoU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1706106990; h=from:from:reply-to: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; bh=U48GhGjTaGvY746EE7JSAuVTIxaEh/g3WDI4z+6SK74=; b=aNwvDvmyLMxe9wNcyY2gsNupis552OFIWzh3vjTGxo9uu+rDMgQWjZ0lVaQ0G9Ti4vEBdJ yaS6cz2AjQJ/kPCQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 804D81333E; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id N/t3Hm4gsWU5XQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:36:30 +0000 From: Avinesh Kumar To: Martin Doucha Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:36:30 +0100 Message-ID: <2947768.e9J7NaK4W3@localhost> Organization: SUSE In-Reply-To: <325e7294-f6b1-4e27-a51b-8a8e146bf5bc@suse.cz> References: <20240123165539.32514-1-akumar@suse.de> <325e7294-f6b1-4e27-a51b-8a8e146bf5bc@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.10 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:email,suse.de:email]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] mmap04.c: Avoid vma merging X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Martin, On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 12:56:58 PM CET Martin Doucha wrote: > Hi, > some comments below. > > On 23. 01. 24 17:55, Avinesh Kumar wrote: > > 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 > > Reported-by: Martin Doucha > > --- > > > > 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 > > > > -#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"} > The MAP_FIXED flag doesn't belong in the testcases, it should be added > in the mmap() call instead: SAFE_MMAP(..., tc->flags | MAP_FIXED, ...); > It's an implementation detail not related to the testcases themselves. > You don't want to rewrite all the test cases again if we decide to not > use MAP_FIXED for whatever reason in the future. > Thank you for review and all the corrections/suggestions. I have send the updated patch. > > }; > > > > 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); > This would be cleaner (just invert the shared/private flag): > int flags = (tc->flags & MAP_PRIVATE) ? MAP_SHARED : MAP_PRIVATE; > addr1 = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, pagesize * 2, PROT_NONE, MAP_ANONYMOUS | flags, > -1, 0); > > > + > > + addr2 = SAFE_MMAP(addr1 + pagesize, pagesize, tc->prot, tc->flags, -1, > > 0); + > > + sprintf(addr_str, "%" PRIxPTR, (uintptr_t)addr2); > > Why not merge the two sprintf()s into one? > sprintf(fmt, "%" PRIxPTR "-%%*x %%s", (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 = { -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp