Revision ec057595cb3fb339e692898bedccd566160ba086 authored by Linus Torvalds on 06 December 2019, 20:40:35 UTC, committed by Linus Torvalds on 06 December 2019, 20:40:35 UTC
Similarly to commit 8f868d68d335 ("pipe: Fix missing mask update after
pipe_wait()") this fixes a case where the pipe rewrite ended up caching
the pipe state incorrectly over a pipe lock drop event.

It wasn't quite as obvious, because you needed to splice data from a
pipe to a file, which is a fairly unusual operation, but it's completely
wrong.

Make sure we load the pipe head/tail/size information only after we've
waited for there to be data in the pipe.

While in that file, also make one of the splice helper functions use the
canonical arghument order for pipe_empty().  That's syntactic - pipe
emptiness is just that head and tail are equal, and thus mixing up head
and tail doesn't really matter.  It's still wrong, though.

Reported-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
1 parent 7ada90e
Raw File
sysctl-test.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, (size_t)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)0, len);

	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer,
					       &len, &pos));
	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)4, len);
	buffer[len] = '\0';
	KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "-16\n", (char *)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, (size_t)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, (size_t)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_suite(sysctl_test_suite);
back to top