mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-30 08:04:13 +08:00
388ca2e024
With some of the stricter type checking in KUnit's EXPECT macros removed, several casts in sysctl-test are no longer required. Remove the unnecessary casts, making the conditions clearer. Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
395 lines
11 KiB
C
395 lines
11 KiB
C
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
|
|
/*
|
|
* KUnit test of proc sysctl.
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <kunit/test.h>
|
|
#include <linux/sysctl.h>
|
|
|
|
#define KUNIT_PROC_READ 0
|
|
#define KUNIT_PROC_WRITE 1
|
|
|
|
static int i_zero;
|
|
static int i_one_hundred = 100;
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that proc_dointvec will not try to use a NULL .data field even when the
|
|
* length is non-zero.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_null_tbl_data(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
struct ctl_table null_data_table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
/*
|
|
* Here we are testing that proc_dointvec behaves correctly when
|
|
* we give it a NULL .data field. Normally this would point to a
|
|
* piece of memory where the value would be stored.
|
|
*/
|
|
.data = NULL,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
/*
|
|
* proc_dointvec expects a buffer in user space, so we allocate one. We
|
|
* also need to cast it to __user so sparse doesn't get mad.
|
|
*/
|
|
void __user *buffer = (void __user *)kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(int),
|
|
GFP_USER);
|
|
size_t len;
|
|
loff_t pos;
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* We don't care what the starting length is since proc_dointvec should
|
|
* not try to read because .data is NULL.
|
|
*/
|
|
len = 1234;
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&null_data_table,
|
|
KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len,
|
|
&pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* See above.
|
|
*/
|
|
len = 1234;
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&null_data_table,
|
|
KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer, &len,
|
|
&pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Similar to the previous test, we create a struct ctrl_table that has a .data
|
|
* field that proc_dointvec cannot do anything with; however, this time it is
|
|
* because we tell proc_dointvec that the size is 0.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_maxlen_unset(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
struct ctl_table data_maxlen_unset_table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
/*
|
|
* So .data is no longer NULL, but we tell proc_dointvec its
|
|
* length is 0, so it still shouldn't try to use it.
|
|
*/
|
|
.maxlen = 0,
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
void __user *buffer = (void __user *)kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(int),
|
|
GFP_USER);
|
|
size_t len;
|
|
loff_t pos;
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* As before, we don't care what buffer length is because proc_dointvec
|
|
* cannot do anything because its internal .data buffer has zero length.
|
|
*/
|
|
len = 1234;
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&data_maxlen_unset_table,
|
|
KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len,
|
|
&pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* See previous comment.
|
|
*/
|
|
len = 1234;
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&data_maxlen_unset_table,
|
|
KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer, &len,
|
|
&pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Here we provide a valid struct ctl_table, but we try to read and write from
|
|
* it using a buffer of zero length, so it should still fail in a similar way as
|
|
* before.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_len_is_zero(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
/* Good table. */
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
void __user *buffer = (void __user *)kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(int),
|
|
GFP_USER);
|
|
/*
|
|
* However, now our read/write buffer has zero length.
|
|
*/
|
|
size_t len = 0;
|
|
loff_t pos;
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer,
|
|
&len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer,
|
|
&len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that proc_dointvec refuses to read when the file position is non-zero.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_read_but_position_set(
|
|
struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
/* Good table. */
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
void __user *buffer = (void __user *)kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(int),
|
|
GFP_USER);
|
|
/*
|
|
* We don't care about our buffer length because we start off with a
|
|
* non-zero file position.
|
|
*/
|
|
size_t len = 1234;
|
|
/*
|
|
* proc_dointvec should refuse to read into the buffer since the file
|
|
* pos is non-zero.
|
|
*/
|
|
loff_t pos = 1;
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer,
|
|
&len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that we can read a two digit number in a sufficiently size buffer.
|
|
* Nothing fancy.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_positive(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
/* Good table. */
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
size_t len = 4;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
/* Store 13 in the data field. */
|
|
*((int *)table.data) = 13;
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, 3, len);
|
|
buffer[len] = '\0';
|
|
/* And we read 13 back out. */
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "13\n", buffer);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Same as previous test, just now with negative numbers.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_negative(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
/* Good table. */
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
size_t len = 5;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
*((int *)table.data) = -16;
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, 4, len);
|
|
buffer[len] = '\0';
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "-16\n", buffer);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that a simple positive write works.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_positive(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
/* Good table. */
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
char input[] = "9";
|
|
size_t len = sizeof(input) - 1;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
|
|
memcpy(buffer, input, len);
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, len);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, pos);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 9, *((int *)table.data));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Same as previous test, but now with negative numbers.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_negative(struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
char input[] = "-9";
|
|
size_t len = sizeof(input) - 1;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
|
|
memcpy(buffer, input, len);
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, len);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, pos);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -9, *((int *)table.data));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that writing a value smaller than the minimum possible value is not
|
|
* allowed.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_less_int_min(
|
|
struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
size_t max_len = 32, len = max_len;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, max_len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
unsigned long abs_of_less_than_min = (unsigned long)INT_MAX
|
|
- (INT_MAX + INT_MIN) + 1;
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* We use this rigmarole to create a string that contains a value one
|
|
* less than the minimum accepted value.
|
|
*/
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test,
|
|
(size_t)snprintf(buffer, max_len, "-%lu",
|
|
abs_of_less_than_min),
|
|
max_len);
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -EINVAL, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, max_len, len);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, *((int *)table.data));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Test that writing the maximum possible value works.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_greater_int_max(
|
|
struct kunit *test)
|
|
{
|
|
int data = 0;
|
|
struct ctl_table table = {
|
|
.procname = "foo",
|
|
.data = &data,
|
|
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
|
|
.mode = 0644,
|
|
.proc_handler = proc_dointvec,
|
|
.extra1 = &i_zero,
|
|
.extra2 = &i_one_hundred,
|
|
};
|
|
size_t max_len = 32, len = max_len;
|
|
loff_t pos = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, max_len, GFP_USER);
|
|
char __user *user_buffer = (char __user *)buffer;
|
|
unsigned long greater_than_max = (unsigned long)INT_MAX + 1;
|
|
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_GT(test, greater_than_max, (unsigned long)INT_MAX);
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, (size_t)snprintf(buffer, max_len, "%lu",
|
|
greater_than_max),
|
|
max_len);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -EINVAL, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE,
|
|
user_buffer, &len, &pos));
|
|
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, max_len, len);
|
|
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, *((int *)table.data));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static struct kunit_case sysctl_test_cases[] = {
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_null_tbl_data),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_maxlen_unset),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_len_is_zero),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_read_but_position_set),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_positive),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_negative),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_positive),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_negative),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_less_int_min),
|
|
KUNIT_CASE(sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_greater_int_max),
|
|
{}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
static struct kunit_suite sysctl_test_suite = {
|
|
.name = "sysctl_test",
|
|
.test_cases = sysctl_test_cases,
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
kunit_test_suites(&sysctl_test_suite);
|
|
|
|
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
|