There are four cases I can see where we could end up with a NULL 'slot' in
radix_tree_next_slot(). This unit test exercises all four of them, making
sure that if in the future we have an unsafe path through
radix_tree_next_slot(), we'll catch it.
Here are details on the four cases:
1) radix_tree_iter_retry() via a non-tagged iteration like
radix_tree_for_each_slot(). In this case we currently aren't seeing a bug
because radix_tree_iter_retry() sets
iter->next_index = iter->index;
which means that in in the else case in radix_tree_next_slot(), 'count' is
zero, so we skip over the while() loop and effectively just return NULL
without ever dereferencing 'slot'.
2) radix_tree_iter_retry() via tagged iteration like
radix_tree_for_each_tagged(). This case was giving us NULL pointer
dereferences in testing, and was fixed with this commit:
commit 3cb9185c67 ("radix-tree: fix radix_tree_iter_retry() for tagged
iterators.")
This fix doesn't explicitly check for 'slot' being NULL, though, it works
around the NULL pointer dereference by instead zeroing iter->tags in
radix_tree_iter_retry(), which makes us bail out of the if() case in
radix_tree_next_slot() before we dereference 'slot'.
3) radix_tree_iter_next() via via a non-tagged iteration like
radix_tree_for_each_slot(). This currently happens in shmem_tag_pins()
and shmem_partial_swap_usage().
As with non-tagged iteration, 'count' in the else case of
radix_tree_next_slot() is zero, so we skip over the while() loop and
effectively just return NULL without ever dereferencing 'slot'.
4) radix_tree_iter_next() via tagged iteration like
radix_tree_for_each_tagged(). This happens in shmem_wait_for_pins().
radix_tree_iter_next() zeros out iter->tags, so we end up exiting
radix_tree_next_slot() here:
if (flags & RADIX_TREE_ITER_TAGGED) {
void *canon = slot;
iter->tags >>= 1;
if (unlikely(!iter->tags))
return NULL;
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160815194237.25967-3-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Add a unit test that provides coverage for the bug fixed in the commit
entitled "radix-tree: rewrite radix_tree_locate_item fix" from Hugh
Dickins. I've verified that this test fails before his patch due to
miscalculated 'index' values in __locate() in lib/radix-tree.c, and
passes with his fix.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1462307263-20623-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Use the new multi-order support functions to rewrite
radix_tree_locate_item(). Modify the locate tests to test multiorder
entries too.
[hughd@google.com: radix_tree_locate_item() is often returning the wrong index]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LSU.2.11.1605012108490.1166@eggly.anvils
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Test suite infrastructure for working with multiorder entries.
The test itself is pretty basic: Add an entry, check that all expected
indices return that entry and that indices around that entry don't
return an entry. Then delete the entry and check no index returns that
entry. Tests a few edge conditions including the multiorder entry at
index 0 and at a higher index. Also tests deleting through an alias as
well as through the canonical index.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Currently the full suite of regression tests take upwards of 30 minutes
to run on my development machine. The vast majority of this time is
taken by the big_gang_check() and copy_tag_check() tests, which each run
their tests through thousands of iterations...does this have value?
Without big_gang_check() and copy_tag_check(), the test suite runs in
around 15 seconds on my box.
Honestly the first time I ever ran through the entire test suite was to
gather the timings for this email - it simply takes too long to be
useful on a normal basis.
Instead, hide the excessive iterations through big_gang_check() and
copy_tag_check() tests behind an '-l' flag (for "long run") in case they
are still useful, but allow the regression test suite to complete in a
reasonable amount of time. We still run each of these tests a few times
(3 at present) to try and keep the test coverage.
Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Fairly simple tests; add various items to the tree, then make sure we
can find them again. Also check that a pointer that we know isn't in
the tree is not found.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
After calling radix_tree_iter_retry(), 'slot' will be set to NULL. This
can cause radix_tree_next_slot() to dereference the NULL pointer. Add
Konstantin Khlebnikov's test to the regression framework.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>
Reported-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This code is mostly from Andrew Morton and Nick Piggin; tarball downloaded
from http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/rtth.tar.gz with sha1sum
0ce679db9ec047296b5d1ff7a1dfaa03a7bef1bd
Some small modifications were necessary to the test harness to fix the
build with the current Linux source code.
I also made minor modifications to automatically test the radix-tree.c
and radix-tree.h files that are in the current source tree, as opposed
to a copied and slightly modified version. I am sure more could be done
to tidy up the harness, as well as adding more tests.
[koct9i@gmail.com: fix compilation]
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Ross Zwisler
Matthew Wilcox
Konstantin Khlebnikov