| Message ID | 20210727180649.12943-4-broonie@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kselftest/arm64: Vector length configuration tests | expand |
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 07:06:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > We provide interfaces for configuring the SVE vector length seen by > processes using prctl and also via /proc for configuring the default > values. Provide tests that exercise all these interfaces and verify that > they take effect as expected, though at present no test fully enumerates > all the possible vector lengths. Does "at present" mean that this test doesn't do it either? (It doesn't seem to try every VL, unless I've missed something? Is this planned?) > A subset of this is already tested via sve-probe-vls but the /proc > interfaces are not currently covered at all. > > In preparation for the forthcoming support for SME, the Scalable Matrix > Extension, which has separately but similarly configured vector lengths > which we expect to offer similar userspace interfaces for, all the actual > files and prctls used are parameterised and we don't validate that the > architectural minimum vector length is the minimum we see. This looks like a good addition overall... > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore | 1 + > tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile | 3 +- > tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 578 ++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 581 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore > index 6b53a7b60fee..b67395903b9b 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore > @@ -3,4 +3,5 @@ rdvl-sve > sve-probe-vls > sve-ptrace > sve-test > +vec-syscfg > vlset > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile > index fa3a0167db2d..f2abdd6ba12e 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > CFLAGS += -I../../../../../usr/include/ > -TEST_GEN_PROGS := sve-ptrace sve-probe-vls > +TEST_GEN_PROGS := sve-ptrace sve-probe-vls vec-syscfg > TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := fpsimd-test fpsimd-stress \ > rdvl-sve \ > sve-test sve-stress \ > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ sve-ptrace: sve-ptrace.o sve-ptrace-asm.o > sve-probe-vls: sve-probe-vls.o rdvl.o > sve-test: sve-test.o > $(CC) -nostdlib $^ -o $@ > +vec-syscfg: vec-syscfg.o rdvl.o > vlset: vlset.o > > include ../../lib.mk > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..360c3a7cae26 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c > @@ -0,0 +1,578 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > +/* > + * Copyright (C) 2021 ARM Limited. > + * Original author: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > + */ > +#include <errno.h> > +#include <fcntl.h> > +#include <limits.h> Not used? ^ > +#include <stddef.h> > +#include <stdio.h> > +#include <stdlib.h> Not used? ^ > +#include <string.h> > +#include <unistd.h> > +#include <sys/auxv.h> > +#include <sys/prctl.h> > +#include <sys/ptrace.h> Not used? ^ > +#include <sys/types.h> > +#include <sys/uio.h> Not used? ^ (This would have been for struct iovec, for ptrace regset access. I'm guessing some of this #include list was pasted from the existing ptrace tests?) > +#include <sys/wait.h> > +#include <asm/sigcontext.h> > +#include <asm/ptrace.h> Not used? ^ > + > +#include "../../kselftest.h" > +#include "rdvl.h" > + > +#define ARRAY_SIZE(a) (sizeof(a) / sizeof(a[0])) > + > +#define MIN_VL 16 <asm/sigcontext.h> has SVE_MIN_VL. Maybe we can use that everywhere these days? > + > +struct vec_data { Could be const; persumably also static? Maybe split the struct definition from the definition of vec_data[], since it's a bit long. > + const char *name; > + unsigned long hwcap_type; > + unsigned long hwcap; > + const char *rdvl_binary; > + int (*rdvl)(void); > + > + int prctl_get; > + int prctl_set; > + const char *default_vl_file; > + > + int default_vl; > + int min_vl; > + int max_vl; Ah, mind you, these are written by the test. Never mind. Seems overkill to split this up just to constify. > +} vec_data[] = { > + { > + .name = "SVE", > + .hwcap_type = AT_HWCAP, > + .hwcap = HWCAP_SVE, > + .rdvl = rdvl_sve, > + .rdvl_binary = "./rdvl-sve", > + .prctl_get = PR_SVE_GET_VL, > + .prctl_set = PR_SVE_SET_VL, > + .default_vl_file = "/proc/sys/abi/sve_default_vector_length", > + }, > +}; > + > +/* Start a new process and return the vector length it sees */ > +int get_child_rdvl(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + char buf[10]; 10? > + int pipefd[2]; > + pid_t pid, child; > + int read_vl, ret; > + > + ret = pipe(pipefd); > + if (ret == -1) { > + ksft_print_msg("pipe() failed: %d (%s)\n", > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } Hmm, come to think of it: --8<-- #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { puts("Listen very carefully, I shall say zees only once!"); fork(); return 0; } -->8-- $ ./fork -> Listen very carefully, I shall say zees only once! $ ./fork | cat -> Listen very carefully, I shall say zees only once! Listen very carefully, I shall say zees only once! Funny that doesn't come up more often. I don't seem to recall this being described anywhere. Since we are about to change fd 1 under stdout's feet, it's probably at least a good idea to fflush(stdout) before forking here. I wonder whether this should really be up to libc, but it's a tricky call since flushing a stream could cause the process to block if there are clogged pipes hanging off it. > + > + child = fork(); > + if (child == -1) { > + ksft_print_msg("fork() failed: %d (%s)\n", > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + /* Child: put vector length on the pipe */ > + if (child == 0) { > + /* > + * Replace stdout with the pipe, errors to stderr from > + * here as kselftest prints to stdout. > + */ > + ret = dup2(pipefd[1], 1); > + if (ret == -1) { > + fprintf(stderr, "dup2() %d\n", errno); > + exit(-1); Should these exit(-1) be exit(1)? The exit status always gets truncated to 8 bits, but I don't like to deliberately tease the kernel. Or use the EXIT_foo codes from <stdlib.h>. > + } > + > + /* exec() a new binary which puts the VL on stdout */ > + ret = execl(data->rdvl_binary, data->rdvl_binary, NULL); > + fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d\n", > + data->rdvl_binary, errno, strerror(errno)); > + > + exit(-1); > + } > + > + close(pipefd[1]); > + > + /* Parent; wait for the exit status from the child & verify it */ > + while (1) { > + pid = wait(&ret); > + if (pid == -1) { > + ksft_print_msg("wait() failed: %d (%s)\n", > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + if (pid != child) > + continue; > + > + if (!WIFEXITED(ret)) { > + ksft_print_msg("child exited abnormally\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > + if (WEXITSTATUS(ret) != 0) { > + ksft_print_msg("child returned error %d\n", > + WEXITSTATUS(ret)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf)); > + ret = read(pipefd[0], buf, sizeof(buf) - 1); > + if (ret <= 0) { > + ksft_print_msg("read() failed: %d (%s)\n", > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + close(pipefd[0]); > + > + ret = sscanf(buf, "%d", &read_vl); To be robust against truncation, we could do int n = 0; ret = sscanf(buf, "%d%*1[\n]%n", &read_vl, &n); if (ret < 1 || n < 1) { ... Alternatively, can we just use fdopen() and fscanf()? Then we don't have to sweat details like buffer sizes at all. This "read a single integer from an fd" thing is done a few times, maybe it's worth wrapping up in a helper, or just use stdio everywhere possible. > + if (ret != 1) { > + ksft_print_msg("failed to parse VL from '%s'\n", > + buf); > + return -1; > + } > + > + return read_vl; > + } > +} > + > +int file_read_integer(const char *name, int *val) > +{ > + char buf[40]; > + int f, ret; > + > + f = open(name, O_RDONLY); > + if (f < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("Unable to open %s: %d (%s)\n", > + name, errno, > + strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf)); > + ret = read(f, buf, sizeof(buf) - 1); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("Error reading %s: %d (%s)\n", > + name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + close(f); > + > + ret = sscanf(buf, "%d", val); > + if (ret != 1) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("Failed to parse %s\n", name); > + return -1; > + } Can all this be done with fopen+fscanf+fclose? > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val) > +{ > + char buf[40]; > + int f, ret; > + > + f = open(name, O_WRONLY); > + if (f < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("Unable to open %s: %d (%s)\n", > + name, errno, > + strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", val); > + ret = write(f, buf, strlen(buf)); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("Error writing %d to %s: %d (%s)\n", > + val, name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + close(f); Similarly here. > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +/* > + * Verify that we can read the default VL via proc, checking that it > + * is set in a freshly spawned child. > + */ > +void proc_read_default(struct vec_data *data) Since we also check that the default takes effect, can this be renamed proc_verify_default() or similar? > +{ > + int default_vl, child_vl, ret; > + > + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &default_vl); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* Is this the actual default seen by new processes? */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != default_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + default_vl, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s default vector length %d\n", data->name, > + default_vl); > + data->default_vl = default_vl; > +} > + > +/* Verify that we can write a minimum value and have it take effect */ > +void proc_write_min(struct vec_data *data) Could be proc_write_check_min() (though the "check" is a bit more redundant here; from "write" it's clear that this function actually does something nontrivial). > +{ > + int ret, new_default, child_vl; > + > + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, MIN_VL); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* What was the new value? */ > + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &new_default); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* Did it take effect in a new process? */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != new_default) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + new_default, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s minimum vector length %d\n", data->name, > + new_default); > + data->min_vl = new_default; > + > + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); > +} > + > +/* Verify that we can write a maximum value and have it take effect */ > +void proc_write_max(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret, new_default, child_vl; > + > + /* -1 is accepted by the /proc interface as the maximum VL */ > + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, -1); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* What was the new value? */ > + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &new_default); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* Did it take effect in a new process? */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != new_default) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + new_default, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s maximum vector length %d\n", data->name, > + new_default); > + data->max_vl = new_default; > + > + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); > +} > + > +/* Can we read back a VL from prctl? */ It's certainly possible. I used to have a tool that found out the current VL of a running PID using ptrace, but I didn't want people thinking that connecting to random running processes just to find this out was a good idea... For these tests you could just exec /bin/true (or even argv[0], to avoid fs dependencies -- doesn't matter what is exec'd) and just read the VL at the ptrace post-exec stop before throwing the child a SIGKILL. Since this would test different kernel paths from getting the child itself to do RVDL / PR_SVE_GET_VL, it would be a different test though. I think this diff is still good, but beefing up the ptrace tests to do the appropriate checks would be good too (if we don't have that already). > +void prctl_get(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); > + if (ret == -1) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Mask out any flags */ > + ret &= PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK; > + > + /* Is that what we can read back directly? */ > + if (ret == data->rdvl()) > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n", > + data->name, ret); > + else > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n", > + data->name, ret, data->rdvl()); > +} > + > +/* Does the prctl let us set the VL we already have? */ > +void prctl_set_same(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int cur_vl = data->rdvl(); > + int ret; > + > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, cur_vl); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + if (cur_vl != data->rdvl()) > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n", > + data->name, ret); > + else > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n", > + data->name, ret, data->rdvl()); > +} > + > +/* Can we set a new VL for this process? */ > +void prctl_set(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Try to set the minimum VL */ > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + if ((ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK) != data->min_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set %d but return value is %d\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, data->rdvl()); > + return; > + } > + > + if (data->rdvl() != data->min_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s set %d but RDVL is %d\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, data->rdvl()); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Try to set the maximum VL */ > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->max_vl); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->max_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + if ((ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK) != data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() set %d but return value is %d\n", > + data->name, data->max_vl, data->rdvl()); > + return; > + } > + > + /* The _INHERIT flag should not be present when we read the VL */ > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); > + if (ret == -1) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + if (ret & PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() reports _INHERIT\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s prctl() set min/max\n", data->name); > +} > + > +/* If we didn't request it a new VL shouldn't affect the child */ > +void prctl_set_no_child(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret, child_vl; > + > + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Ensure the default VL is different */ > + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* Check that the child has the default we just set */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + data->max_vl, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length used default\n", data->name); > + > + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); > +} > + > +/* If we didn't request it a new VL shouldn't affect the child */ > +void prctl_set_for_child(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret, child_vl; > + > + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl | PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + /* The _INHERIT flag should be present when we read the VL */ > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); > + if (ret == -1) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + if (!(ret & PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT)) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() does not report _INHERIT\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Ensure the default VL is different */ > + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + /* Check that the child inherited our VL */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != data->min_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + data->min_vl, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length was inherited\n", data->name); > + > + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); > +} > + > +/* _ONEXEC takes effect only in the child process */ > +void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data) > +{ > + int ret, child_vl; > + > + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Set a known value for the default and our current VL */ > + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); > + if (ret != 0) > + return; > + > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->max_vl); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Set a different value for the child to have on exec */ > + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl | PR_SVE_SET_VL_ONEXEC); > + if (ret < 0) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", > + data->name, data->min_vl, > + errno, strerror(errno)); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Our current VL should stay the same */ > + if (data->rdvl() != data->max_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s VL changed by _ONEXEC prctl()\n", > + data->name); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Check that the child inherited our VL */ > + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); > + if (child_vl != data->min_vl) { > + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", > + data->default_vl_file, > + data->min_vl, child_vl); > + return; > + } > + > + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length set on exec\n", data->name); > + > + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); > +} > + > +typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *); > + > +test_type tests[] = { > + /* > + * The default/min/max tests must be first to provide data for > + * other tests. > + */ > + proc_read_default, > + proc_write_min, > + proc_write_max, Can we also check what happens when writing unsupported values here? e.g. vl where !sve_vl_valid(); vl = 0; vl = max_supported_vl + 16; vl = SVE_VL_MAX; vl = INT_MAX / 16 * 16; (or possibly LONG_MAX. What's the type in the kernel?) Any unsupported vl (on platforms where the set of supported vls is sparse, can be tested with qemu) (As for what should happen, I can't remember for all cases -- check sve.rst and the kernel code...) If this patch is more about establishing the framework, these could be TODOs for now. > + > + prctl_get, > + prctl_set, > + prctl_set_no_child, > + prctl_set_for_child, > + prctl_set_onexec, > +}; > + > +int main(void) > +{ > + int i, j; > + > + ksft_print_header(); > + ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(tests) * ARRAY_SIZE(vec_data)); > + > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vec_data); i++) { > + struct vec_data *data = &vec_data[i]; > + int supported = getauxval(data->hwcap_type) & data->hwcap; > + > + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); j++) { > + if (supported) > + tests[j](data); > + else > + ksft_test_result_skip("%s not supported\n", > + data->name); > + } > + } Can we be a good citizen and restore sve_default_vector_length to its original value? Also, we should probably disable the default vector length writing tests if not running with EUID==0. Verifying that writing the default vector length fails when non-root would be worth testing. If running as root, a temporary seteuid(nobody_uid) could be used for that. (Not sure whether there's a correct way to get nobody_uid other than with setpwent()/while { getpwent() ... }/endpwent(), but that's not too hard. Or just hardcode 65534 -- I'd be prepared to bet other tests do that. That would work fine without a proper filesystem.) Cheers ---Dave
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:41:58AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 07:06:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > We provide interfaces for configuring the SVE vector length seen by > > processes using prctl and also via /proc for configuring the default > > values. Provide tests that exercise all these interfaces and verify that > > they take effect as expected, though at present no test fully enumerates > > all the possible vector lengths. > Does "at present" mean that this test doesn't do it either? > (It doesn't seem to try every VL, unless I've missed something? Is this > planned?) Nothing currently does it, and nor does this patch. Planned is a strong term but yes, ideally we should probe all the VLs. > > +#include <stddef.h> > > +#include <stdio.h> > > +#include <stdlib.h> > > Not used? ^ We call exit() which is declared in stdlib.h. > > +#define MIN_VL 16 > <asm/sigcontext.h> has SVE_MIN_VL. Maybe we can use that everywhere > these days? I partly wanted the vector type neutral name, and I'm considering modifying the sysfs ABI file to define 0 as a valid vector length for consistency with accepting -1 as the maximum since SME doesn't have any architected guarantees as to which particular vector lengths are defined. > > +/* Verify that we can write a minimum value and have it take effect */ > > +void proc_write_min(struct vec_data *data) > Could be proc_write_check_min() (though the "check" is a bit more > redundant here; from "write" it's clear that this function actually > does something nontrivial). TBH I'm not sure people will be excssively confused by the idea that a test would validate the values it was trying to read or write were accurate. > > +/* Can we read back a VL from prctl? */ > > It's certainly possible. The comment is describing what the test is verifying. > Since this would test different kernel paths from getting the child > itself to do RVDL / PR_SVE_GET_VL, it would be a different test though. > I think this diff is still good, but beefing up the ptrace tests to do > the appropriate checks would be good too (if we don't have that already). Yes, the ptrace stuff could have a bit more coverage. > > + proc_write_min, > > + proc_write_max, > Can we also check what happens when writing unsupported values here? We could. > If this patch is more about establishing the framework, these could be > TODOs for now. It definitely feels like something we can do incrementally. > Can we be a good citizen and restore sve_default_vector_length to its > original value? We do that in the tests that fiddle with the default vector length, it seems useful to keep it at a value different from min and max as much as possible to increase the chance that we notice a failure to set things. > Also, we should probably disable the default vector length writing tests > if not running with EUID==0. Verifying that writing the default vector kselftest in general isn't going to have a great time run as non-root but yes, it wouldn't hurt to check. > length fails when non-root would be worth testing. If running as root, > a temporary seteuid(nobody_uid) could be used for that. This feels like another thing that could be done incrementally.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:59:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:41:58AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 07:06:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > We provide interfaces for configuring the SVE vector length seen by > > > processes using prctl and also via /proc for configuring the default > > > values. Provide tests that exercise all these interfaces and verify that > > > they take effect as expected, though at present no test fully enumerates > > > all the possible vector lengths. > > > Does "at present" mean that this test doesn't do it either? > > > (It doesn't seem to try every VL, unless I've missed something? Is this > > planned?) > > Nothing currently does it, and nor does this patch. Planned is a strong > term but yes, ideally we should probe all the VLs. > > > > +#include <stddef.h> > > > +#include <stdio.h> > > > +#include <stdlib.h> > > > > Not used? ^ > > We call exit() which is declared in stdlib.h. Ignore me, I confused exit() with _exit(). > > > +#define MIN_VL 16 > > > <asm/sigcontext.h> has SVE_MIN_VL. Maybe we can use that everywhere > > these days? > > I partly wanted the vector type neutral name, and I'm considering > modifying the sysfs ABI file to define 0 as a valid vector length for > consistency with accepting -1 as the maximum since SME doesn't have any > architected guarantees as to which particular vector lengths are defined. I see what you mean, but it is more than mere coincidence that this is the same value as SVE_MIN_VL. You could view SVE as defining the base architecture which SME then extends. Perhaps #define ARCH_MIN_VL SVE_MIN_VL /* architectural minimim VL */ would be neutral enough. Anyway, I won't lose sleep over it. > > > +/* Verify that we can write a minimum value and have it take effect */ > > > +void proc_write_min(struct vec_data *data) > > > Could be proc_write_check_min() (though the "check" is a bit more > > redundant here; from "write" it's clear that this function actually > > does something nontrivial). > > TBH I'm not sure people will be excssively confused by the idea that a > test would validate the values it was trying to read or write were > accurate. It's not 100% clear that this is a test until one has read all the way to the end of the file. But now that I understand the pattern here I wouldn't be too concerned, and the comment accurately describes what the function does. > > > > +/* Can we read back a VL from prctl? */ > > > > It's certainly possible. > > The comment is describing what the test is verifying. Ignore that, I somehow read the comment as something like [TODO] Can we read back a VL via ptrace? which is not what the comment says. > > Since this would test different kernel paths from getting the child > > itself to do RVDL / PR_SVE_GET_VL, it would be a different test though. > > I think this diff is still good, but beefing up the ptrace tests to do > > the appropriate checks would be good too (if we don't have that already). > > Yes, the ptrace stuff could have a bit more coverage. > > > > + proc_write_min, > > > + proc_write_max, > > > Can we also check what happens when writing unsupported values here? > > We could. > > > If this patch is more about establishing the framework, these could be > > TODOs for now. > > It definitely feels like something we can do incrementally. Is it worth committing a TODO list somewhere? There's always the possibility that someone else gets interested and contributes some tests for us; otherwise, at least it makes it harder to forget them. > > Can we be a good citizen and restore sve_default_vector_length to its > > original value? > > We do that in the tests that fiddle with the default vector length, it > seems useful to keep it at a value different from min and max as much as > possible to increase the chance that we notice a failure to set things. Ah right, I hadn't understood that proc_read_default() reads the default and then the subsequent tests write it back. This might be a bit clearer if the setup code was clearly separate from the tests, but so long as the ordering requirements are clearly documented that seems reasonably OK. In: > +test_type tests[] = { > + /* > + * The default/min/max tests must be first to provide data for > + * other tests. > + */ > + proc_read_default, > + proc_write_min, > + proc_write_max, can you also comment that proc_read_default needs to come first among these? > + > + prctl_get, > + prctl_set, > + prctl_set_no_child, > + prctl_set_for_child, > + prctl_set_onexec, > +}; [...] Cheers ---Dave
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > This might be a bit clearer if the setup code was clearly separate from > the tests, but so long as the ordering requirements are clearly > documented that seems reasonably OK. We can't really split the setup code out since the setup code would have to rely on one of the ABIs we're trying to test which is all fine and good until the tests actually help us catch something, we have to build up knowledge of the values as we go and hope that the cross checking we end up with helps us at least catch inconsistencies.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 05:29:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > This might be a bit clearer if the setup code was clearly separate from > > the tests, but so long as the ordering requirements are clearly > > documented that seems reasonably OK. > > We can't really split the setup code out since the setup code would have > to rely on one of the ABIs we're trying to test which is all fine and > good until the tests actually help us catch something, we have to build > up knowledge of the values as we go and hope that the cross checking we > end up with helps us at least catch inconsistencies. Ack. The setup code could be defensive, but you would in effect be doing some of the tests twice then. Or the fact that the setup code is "separate" from the tests might be a bit of an illusion. Cheers ---Dave
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore index 6b53a7b60fee..b67395903b9b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore @@ -3,4 +3,5 @@ rdvl-sve sve-probe-vls sve-ptrace sve-test +vec-syscfg vlset diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile index fa3a0167db2d..f2abdd6ba12e 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 CFLAGS += -I../../../../../usr/include/ -TEST_GEN_PROGS := sve-ptrace sve-probe-vls +TEST_GEN_PROGS := sve-ptrace sve-probe-vls vec-syscfg TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := fpsimd-test fpsimd-stress \ rdvl-sve \ sve-test sve-stress \ @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ sve-ptrace: sve-ptrace.o sve-ptrace-asm.o sve-probe-vls: sve-probe-vls.o rdvl.o sve-test: sve-test.o $(CC) -nostdlib $^ -o $@ +vec-syscfg: vec-syscfg.o rdvl.o vlset: vlset.o include ../../lib.mk diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..360c3a7cae26 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c @@ -0,0 +1,578 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* + * Copyright (C) 2021 ARM Limited. + * Original author: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> + */ +#include <errno.h> +#include <fcntl.h> +#include <limits.h> +#include <stddef.h> +#include <stdio.h> +#include <stdlib.h> +#include <string.h> +#include <unistd.h> +#include <sys/auxv.h> +#include <sys/prctl.h> +#include <sys/ptrace.h> +#include <sys/types.h> +#include <sys/uio.h> +#include <sys/wait.h> +#include <asm/sigcontext.h> +#include <asm/ptrace.h> + +#include "../../kselftest.h" +#include "rdvl.h" + +#define ARRAY_SIZE(a) (sizeof(a) / sizeof(a[0])) + +#define MIN_VL 16 + +struct vec_data { + const char *name; + unsigned long hwcap_type; + unsigned long hwcap; + const char *rdvl_binary; + int (*rdvl)(void); + + int prctl_get; + int prctl_set; + const char *default_vl_file; + + int default_vl; + int min_vl; + int max_vl; +} vec_data[] = { + { + .name = "SVE", + .hwcap_type = AT_HWCAP, + .hwcap = HWCAP_SVE, + .rdvl = rdvl_sve, + .rdvl_binary = "./rdvl-sve", + .prctl_get = PR_SVE_GET_VL, + .prctl_set = PR_SVE_SET_VL, + .default_vl_file = "/proc/sys/abi/sve_default_vector_length", + }, +}; + +/* Start a new process and return the vector length it sees */ +int get_child_rdvl(struct vec_data *data) +{ + char buf[10]; + int pipefd[2]; + pid_t pid, child; + int read_vl, ret; + + ret = pipe(pipefd); + if (ret == -1) { + ksft_print_msg("pipe() failed: %d (%s)\n", + errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + + child = fork(); + if (child == -1) { + ksft_print_msg("fork() failed: %d (%s)\n", + errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + + /* Child: put vector length on the pipe */ + if (child == 0) { + /* + * Replace stdout with the pipe, errors to stderr from + * here as kselftest prints to stdout. + */ + ret = dup2(pipefd[1], 1); + if (ret == -1) { + fprintf(stderr, "dup2() %d\n", errno); + exit(-1); + } + + /* exec() a new binary which puts the VL on stdout */ + ret = execl(data->rdvl_binary, data->rdvl_binary, NULL); + fprintf(stderr, "execl(%s) failed: %d\n", + data->rdvl_binary, errno, strerror(errno)); + + exit(-1); + } + + close(pipefd[1]); + + /* Parent; wait for the exit status from the child & verify it */ + while (1) { + pid = wait(&ret); + if (pid == -1) { + ksft_print_msg("wait() failed: %d (%s)\n", + errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + + if (pid != child) + continue; + + if (!WIFEXITED(ret)) { + ksft_print_msg("child exited abnormally\n"); + return -1; + } + + if (WEXITSTATUS(ret) != 0) { + ksft_print_msg("child returned error %d\n", + WEXITSTATUS(ret)); + return -1; + } + + memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf)); + ret = read(pipefd[0], buf, sizeof(buf) - 1); + if (ret <= 0) { + ksft_print_msg("read() failed: %d (%s)\n", + errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + close(pipefd[0]); + + ret = sscanf(buf, "%d", &read_vl); + if (ret != 1) { + ksft_print_msg("failed to parse VL from '%s'\n", + buf); + return -1; + } + + return read_vl; + } +} + +int file_read_integer(const char *name, int *val) +{ + char buf[40]; + int f, ret; + + f = open(name, O_RDONLY); + if (f < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("Unable to open %s: %d (%s)\n", + name, errno, + strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + + memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf)); + ret = read(f, buf, sizeof(buf) - 1); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("Error reading %s: %d (%s)\n", + name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + close(f); + + ret = sscanf(buf, "%d", val); + if (ret != 1) { + ksft_test_result_fail("Failed to parse %s\n", name); + return -1; + } + + return 0; +} + +int file_write_integer(const char *name, int val) +{ + char buf[40]; + int f, ret; + + f = open(name, O_WRONLY); + if (f < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("Unable to open %s: %d (%s)\n", + name, errno, + strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", val); + ret = write(f, buf, strlen(buf)); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("Error writing %d to %s: %d (%s)\n", + val, name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return -1; + } + close(f); + + return 0; +} + +/* + * Verify that we can read the default VL via proc, checking that it + * is set in a freshly spawned child. + */ +void proc_read_default(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int default_vl, child_vl, ret; + + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &default_vl); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* Is this the actual default seen by new processes? */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != default_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + default_vl, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s default vector length %d\n", data->name, + default_vl); + data->default_vl = default_vl; +} + +/* Verify that we can write a minimum value and have it take effect */ +void proc_write_min(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret, new_default, child_vl; + + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, MIN_VL); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* What was the new value? */ + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &new_default); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* Did it take effect in a new process? */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != new_default) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + new_default, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s minimum vector length %d\n", data->name, + new_default); + data->min_vl = new_default; + + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); +} + +/* Verify that we can write a maximum value and have it take effect */ +void proc_write_max(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret, new_default, child_vl; + + /* -1 is accepted by the /proc interface as the maximum VL */ + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, -1); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* What was the new value? */ + ret = file_read_integer(data->default_vl_file, &new_default); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* Did it take effect in a new process? */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != new_default) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + new_default, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s maximum vector length %d\n", data->name, + new_default); + data->max_vl = new_default; + + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); +} + +/* Can we read back a VL from prctl? */ +void prctl_get(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret; + + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); + if (ret == -1) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + /* Mask out any flags */ + ret &= PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK; + + /* Is that what we can read back directly? */ + if (ret == data->rdvl()) + ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n", + data->name, ret); + else + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n", + data->name, ret, data->rdvl()); +} + +/* Does the prctl let us set the VL we already have? */ +void prctl_set_same(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int cur_vl = data->rdvl(); + int ret; + + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, cur_vl); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + if (cur_vl != data->rdvl()) + ksft_test_result_pass("%s current VL is %d\n", + data->name, ret); + else + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() VL %d but RDVL is %d\n", + data->name, ret, data->rdvl()); +} + +/* Can we set a new VL for this process? */ +void prctl_set(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret; + + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + /* Try to set the minimum VL */ + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + if ((ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK) != data->min_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set %d but return value is %d\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, data->rdvl()); + return; + } + + if (data->rdvl() != data->min_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s set %d but RDVL is %d\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, data->rdvl()); + return; + } + + /* Try to set the maximum VL */ + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->max_vl); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->max_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + if ((ret & PR_SVE_VL_LEN_MASK) != data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() set %d but return value is %d\n", + data->name, data->max_vl, data->rdvl()); + return; + } + + /* The _INHERIT flag should not be present when we read the VL */ + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); + if (ret == -1) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + if (ret & PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() reports _INHERIT\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s prctl() set min/max\n", data->name); +} + +/* If we didn't request it a new VL shouldn't affect the child */ +void prctl_set_no_child(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret, child_vl; + + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + /* Ensure the default VL is different */ + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* Check that the child has the default we just set */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + data->max_vl, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length used default\n", data->name); + + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); +} + +/* If we didn't request it a new VL shouldn't affect the child */ +void prctl_set_for_child(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret, child_vl; + + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl | PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + /* The _INHERIT flag should be present when we read the VL */ + ret = prctl(data->prctl_get); + if (ret == -1) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() read failed: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + if (!(ret & PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT)) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl() does not report _INHERIT\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + /* Ensure the default VL is different */ + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + /* Check that the child inherited our VL */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != data->min_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + data->min_vl, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length was inherited\n", data->name); + + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); +} + +/* _ONEXEC takes effect only in the child process */ +void prctl_set_onexec(struct vec_data *data) +{ + int ret, child_vl; + + if (data->min_vl == data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_skip("%s only one VL supported\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + /* Set a known value for the default and our current VL */ + ret = file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->max_vl); + if (ret != 0) + return; + + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->max_vl); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + /* Set a different value for the child to have on exec */ + ret = prctl(data->prctl_set, data->min_vl | PR_SVE_SET_VL_ONEXEC); + if (ret < 0) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s prctl set failed for %d: %d (%s)\n", + data->name, data->min_vl, + errno, strerror(errno)); + return; + } + + /* Our current VL should stay the same */ + if (data->rdvl() != data->max_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s VL changed by _ONEXEC prctl()\n", + data->name); + return; + } + + /* Check that the child inherited our VL */ + child_vl = get_child_rdvl(data); + if (child_vl != data->min_vl) { + ksft_test_result_fail("%s is %d but child VL is %d\n", + data->default_vl_file, + data->min_vl, child_vl); + return; + } + + ksft_test_result_pass("%s vector length set on exec\n", data->name); + + file_write_integer(data->default_vl_file, data->default_vl); +} + +typedef void (*test_type)(struct vec_data *); + +test_type tests[] = { + /* + * The default/min/max tests must be first to provide data for + * other tests. + */ + proc_read_default, + proc_write_min, + proc_write_max, + + prctl_get, + prctl_set, + prctl_set_no_child, + prctl_set_for_child, + prctl_set_onexec, +}; + +int main(void) +{ + int i, j; + + ksft_print_header(); + ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(tests) * ARRAY_SIZE(vec_data)); + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vec_data); i++) { + struct vec_data *data = &vec_data[i]; + int supported = getauxval(data->hwcap_type) & data->hwcap; + + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); j++) { + if (supported) + tests[j](data); + else + ksft_test_result_skip("%s not supported\n", + data->name); + } + } + + ksft_exit_pass(); +}
We provide interfaces for configuring the SVE vector length seen by processes using prctl and also via /proc for configuring the default values. Provide tests that exercise all these interfaces and verify that they take effect as expected, though at present no test fully enumerates all the possible vector lengths. A subset of this is already tested via sve-probe-vls but the /proc interfaces are not currently covered at all. In preparation for the forthcoming support for SME, the Scalable Matrix Extension, which has separately but similarly configured vector lengths which we expect to offer similar userspace interfaces for, all the actual files and prctls used are parameterised and we don't validate that the architectural minimum vector length is the minimum we see. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/Makefile | 3 +- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c | 578 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 581 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/vec-syscfg.c