Hi Thomas, On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 11:13 PM Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 12:51:48PM +0000, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Add a KUnit test suite to verify the insertion and sorting of mappings > > in struct uid_gid_map. This test suite validates both base extent > > insertion (<= 5 mappings) and extended extent insertion (> 5 mappings, > > which triggers the allocation of the forward and reverse pointers). > > > > This is especially useful for verifying that the __counted_by_ptr > > attribute added to 'forward' and 'reverse' pointers works correctly > > without causing any runtime bounds-checking panics or traps. > > AFAIU patch 1 is supposed to not change any behavior. > You could move the unit test to the front to make that clearer > and also validate it. > Patch 1 generates code to assert if a memory address outside of the bounds of a pointer is accessed. So it does change the behavior. Should I still move the test case?
> > Assisted-by: Gemini Next > > Change-Id: If0c2c197a35cd7429cf0d2d6e3b33f0d9f0be66c > > Change-Id should not be used upstream. > See Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst. > I had removed it in v2. :-) > > Signed-off-by: Bill Wendling <[email protected]> > > --- > > Cc: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> > > Cc: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]> > > Cc: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> > > Cc: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Cc: Nicolas Schier <[email protected]> > > Cc: Gary Guo <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Thomas Weißschuh" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Alice Ryhl <[email protected]> > > Cc: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> > > Cc: Anand Moon <[email protected]> > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > --- > > init/Kconfig | 10 ++++ > > kernel/.kunitconfig | 3 ++ > > kernel/user_namespace.c | 4 ++ > > kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 104 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 kernel/.kunitconfig > > create mode 100644 kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c > > (...) > > > +static void test_user_ns_map_insert_extended(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct uid_gid_map map; > > + struct uid_gid_extent extent; > > + int i, ret; > > (...) > > > + /* Now sort the map to set up reverse mapping */ > > + ret = sort_idmaps(&map); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, map.reverse); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_*() will *not* abort the test when the assertion fails ... > > > + > > + /* Verify sorting is correct */ > > + for (i = 0; i < map.nr_extents; i++) { > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].count, 5); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.reverse[i].count, 5); > > ... leading to a crash here if map.reverse is invalid. > > To also abort the test on assertion failure use KUNIT_ASSERT_*(). > Roger that! I changed them to KUNIT_ASSERT_*. > > + } > > + > > + /* Clean up allocations to avoid leaks */ > > Pointless comment. This is true for every single call of kfree(). > Kiboshed. Thanks! -bw
