Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:42:48 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, dancol@google.com,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, jannh@google.com,
        Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>,
        Jonathan Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@gmail.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        luto@amacapital.net, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, sspatil@google.com,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, surenb@google.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, timmurray@google.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] Add selftests for pidfd polling
Message-ID: <20190426134248.GA261279@google.com>
References: <20190425190010.46489-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190425190010.46489-2-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190425212917.yotnir4uqgpnh764@brauner.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190425212917.yotnir4uqgpnh764@brauner.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:29:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Other than verifying pidfd based polling, the tests make sure that
> > wait semantics are preserved with the pidfd poll. Notably the 2 cases:
> > 1. If a thread group leader exits while threads still there, then no
> >    pidfd poll notifcation should happen.
> > 2. If a non-thread group leader does an execve, then the thread group
> >    leader is signaled to exit and is replaced with the execing thread
> >    as the new leader, however the parent is not notified in this case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile     |   2 +-
> >  tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c | 198 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> > index deaf8073bc06..4b31c14f273c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/Makefile
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -CFLAGS += -g -I../../../../usr/include/
> > +CFLAGS += -g -I../../../../usr/include/ -lpthread
> >  
> >  TEST_GEN_PROGS := pidfd_test
> >  
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> > index d59378a93782..e887f807645e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> > @@ -4,18 +4,42 @@
> >  #include <errno.h>
> >  #include <fcntl.h>
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > +#include <pthread.h>
> >  #include <sched.h>
> >  #include <signal.h>
> >  #include <stdio.h>
> >  #include <stdlib.h>
> >  #include <string.h>
> >  #include <syscall.h>
> > +#include <sys/epoll.h>
> > +#include <sys/mman.h>
> >  #include <sys/mount.h>
> >  #include <sys/wait.h>
> > +#include <time.h>
> >  #include <unistd.h>
> >  
> >  #include "../kselftest.h"
> >  
> > +#define CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT 3 /* seconds */
> > +#define MAX_EVENTS 5
> > +#define __NR_pidfd_send_signal 424
> 
> Should probably be ifndefed as well.

done

> > +#ifndef CLONE_PIDFD
> > +#define CLONE_PIDFD 0x00001000
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static pid_t pidfd_clone(int flags, int *pidfd, int (*fn)(void *))
> > +{
> > +	size_t stack_size = 1024;
> > +	char *stack[1024] = { 0 };
> > +
> > +#ifdef __ia64__
> > +	return __clone2(fn, stack, stack_size, flags | SIGCHLD, NULL, pidfd);
> > +#else
> > +	return clone(fn, stack + stack_size, flags | SIGCHLD, NULL, pidfd);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline int sys_pidfd_send_signal(int pidfd, int sig, siginfo_t *info,
> >  					unsigned int flags)
> >  {
> > @@ -368,10 +392,184 @@ static int test_pidfd_send_signal_syscall_support(void)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +void *test_pidfd_poll_exec_thread(void *priv)
> > +{
> > +	char waittime[256];
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: starting. pid %d tid %d ; and sleeping\n",
> > +			getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: doing exec of sleep\n");
> > +
> > +	sprintf(waittime, "%d", CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT);
> 
> > +#define CHILD_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP "3" /* seconds */
> 
> Could also be
> 
> #define str(s) _str(s)
> #define _str(s) #s
> #define CHILD_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP 3
> 
> execl("/bin/sleep", "sleep", str(CHILD_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP), (char *)NULL);
> 
> getting rid of waittime, and snprintf().

yep, much better, thanks.

> > +	execl("/bin/sleep", "sleep", waittime, (char *)NULL);
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: DONE. pid %d tid %d\n",
> > +			getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int poll_pidfd(const char *test_name, int pidfd)
> > +{
> > +	int c;
> > +	int epoll_fd = epoll_create1(0);
> 
> You probably don't need the epoll_fd after an exec, so:
> int epoll_fd = epoll_create1(EPOLL_CLOEXEC);

done

> > +	struct epoll_event event, events[MAX_EVENTS];
> > +
> > +	if (epoll_fd == -1)
> > +		ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed to create epoll file descriptor\n",
> > +				   test_name);
> 
> I think logging the errno is helpful here. 
> 
> > +
> > +	event.events = EPOLLIN;
> > +	event.data.fd = pidfd;
> > +
> > +	if (epoll_ctl(epoll_fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, pidfd, &event)) {
> > +		ksft_print_msg("%s test: Failed to add epoll file descriptor: Skipping\n",
> > +			       test_name);
> 
> I think logging the errno is helpful here. 

no where else in other tests are we logging this. I don't have a preference.
Should ksft_exit_fail_msg() do this automatically? Although it could be
logging a stale errno if it did.  Anyway I added logging of errno here, as
you suggest.

> > +		_exit(PIDFD_SKIP);
> 
> Why do you skip when you can't add the pidfd to the epoll loop? Why
> shouldn't this be a test failure?

The original approach was to do this for proc pidfd, which means older
kernels could get a pidfd but couldn't do poll, in this case I wanted the
test to be skipped. Since we are now basing this on CLONE_PIDFD, there is
less of a reason for that. So I will just do ksft_exit_fail_msg() here.

> > +	}
> > +
> > +	c = epoll_wait(epoll_fd, events, MAX_EVENTS, 5000);
> 
> Uhm 5000 timeout? Either do a -1 or something that is noticeably
> shorter, please. :)

I want a timeout for the case where epoll_wait blocks indefinitely, in which
case it should be a test failure.

> > +	if (c != 1 || !(events[0].events & EPOLLIN))
> > +		ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Unexpected epoll_wait result (c=%d, events=%x)\n",
> > +				   test_name, c, events[0].events);
> 
> I think logging the errno is helpful here. 

Ok, done.

> > +
> > +	close(epoll_fd);
> > +	return events[0].events;
> > +
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int child_poll_exec_test(void *args)
> > +{
> > +	pthread_t t1;
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child (pidfd): starting. pid %d tid %d\n", getpid(),
> > +			syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	pthread_create(&t1, NULL, test_pidfd_poll_exec_thread, NULL);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Exec in the non-leader thread will destroy the leader immediately.
> > +	 * If the wait in the parent returns too soon, the test fails.
> > +	 */
> > +	while (1)
> > +		;
> 
> Wouldn't sleep(<some-value>) be better here or at least a:
> 
> while (true)
>         sleep(<some-sensible-value);
> 
> instead of a busy loop?

Good catch, I will do sleep(1);

> > +}
> > +
> > +int test_pidfd_poll_exec(int use_waitpid)
> > +{
> > +	int pid, pidfd = 0;
> > +	int status, ret;
> > +	pthread_t t1;
> > +	time_t prog_start = time(NULL);
> > +	const char *test_name = "pidfd_poll check for premature notification on child thread exec";
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Parent: pid: %d\n", getpid());
> > +	pid = pidfd_clone(CLONE_PIDFD, &pidfd, child_poll_exec_test);
> 
> That needs to check for error aka
> if (pid < 0)
> I think Tycho mentioned this already.

fixed, thanks to Tycho as well!

> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Parent: Waiting for Child (%d) to complete.\n", pid);
> > +
> > +	if (use_waitpid) {
> > +		ret = waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
> > +		if (ret == -1)
> > +			ksft_print_msg("Parent: error\n");
> > +
> > +		if (ret == pid)
> > +			ksft_print_msg("Parent: Child process waited for.\n");
> > +	} else {
> > +		poll_pidfd(test_name, pidfd);
> 
> Either make poll_pidfd() void or check the error value. One of the two.

done

> > +	}
> > +
> > +	time_t prog_time = time(NULL) - prog_start;
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Time waited for child: %lu\n", prog_time);
> > +
> > +	close(pidfd);
> > +
> > +	if (prog_time < CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT || prog_time > CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT + 2)
> 
> This timing-based testing seems kinda odd to be honest. Can't we do
> something better than this?

will try..

> > +		ksft_exit_fail_msg("%s test: Failed\n", test_name);
> > +	else
> > +		ksft_test_result_pass("%s test: Passed\n", test_name);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void *test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit_thread(void *priv)
> > +{
> > +	char waittime[256];
> 
> Unused variable

ouch, fixed

> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: starting. pid %d tid %d ; and sleeping\n",
> > +			getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	sleep(CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT);
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child Thread: DONE. pid %d tid %d\n", getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static time_t *child_exit_secs;
> > +static int child_poll_leader_exit_test(void *args)
> > +{
> > +	pthread_t t1, t2;
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Child: starting. pid %d tid %d\n", getpid(), syscall(SYS_gettid));
> > +	pthread_create(&t1, NULL, test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit_thread, NULL);
> > +	pthread_create(&t2, NULL, test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit_thread, NULL);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * glibc exit calls exit_group syscall, so explicity call exit only
> > +	 * so that only the group leader exits, leaving the threads alone.
> > +	 */
> > +	*child_exit_secs = time(NULL);
> > +	syscall(SYS_exit, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int test_pidfd_poll_leader_exit(int use_waitpid)
> 
> static

fixed

> > +{
> > +	int pid, pidfd = 0;
> > +	int status, ret;
> > +	time_t prog_start = time(NULL);
> > +	const char *test_name = "pidfd_poll check for premature notification on non-empty"
> > +				"group leader exit";
> > +
> > +	child_exit_secs = mmap(NULL, sizeof *child_exit_secs, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> > +			MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> 
> Error checking, please:
> 
> if (child_exit_secs == MAP_FAILED)

done

> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Parent: pid: %d\n", getpid());
> > +	pid = pidfd_clone(CLONE_PIDFD, &pidfd, child_poll_leader_exit_test);
> 
> Error checking, please:
> 
> if (pid < 0)

done

> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Parent: Waiting for Child (%d) to complete.\n", pid);
> > +
> > +	if (use_waitpid) {
> > +		ret = waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
> > +		if (ret == -1)
> > +			ksft_print_msg("Parent: error\n");
> > +	} else {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * This sleep tests for the case where if the child exits, and is in
> > +		 * EXIT_ZOMBIE, but the thread group leader is non-empty, then the poll
> > +		 * doesn't prematurely return even though there are active threads
> > +		 */
> > +		sleep(1);
> > +		poll_pidfd(test_name, pidfd);
> 
> Make poll_pidfd() void or check error, please.

done, made void

> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (ret == pid)
> > +		ksft_print_msg("Parent: Child process waited for.\n");
> > +
> > +	time_t since_child_exit = time(NULL) - *child_exit_secs;
> > +
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Time since child exit: %lu\n", since_child_exit);
> > +
> > +	close(pidfd);
> > +
> > +	if (since_child_exit < CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT ||
> > +			since_child_exit > CHILD_THREAD_MIN_WAIT + 2)
> 
> This looks very magical. Especially without a comment. Now you add
> random +2. Please comment it or better, come up with a non-timing
> based test.

Will try a non-timing test, need to plan it out. Other comments are addressed
and will post again soon, thanks!

 - Joel