On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 10:00:35PM +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.
> 
> Assisted-by: Gemini:3.1-pro-preview
> Signed-off-by: Bill Wendling <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2 - Remove Gerrit tag.
> v3 - s/KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL/KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL/
>    - Fixed Kconfig tests.
> v4 - Actually test on unsorted data. Corrected the "Assisted-by" tag.
> ---
> Cc: Bradley Morgan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <[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 | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 109 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 kernel/.kunitconfig
>  create mode 100644 kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c
> 
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index f63bf5e05e79..d460344539a5 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -1457,6 +1457,16 @@ config USER_NS
>  
>         If unsure, say N.
>  
> +config USER_NAMESPACE_KUNIT_TEST
> +     bool "Test user namespace map insertion" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +     depends on KUNIT=y

Urgh.

> +     default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +     help
> +       This builds the KUnit test for user namespace uid/gid map insertion.
> +       It validates map insertion, limits, dynamic allocation of the
> +       extended extents array, and mapping sorting functions.
> +       If unsure, say N.
> +
>  config PID_NS
>       bool "PID Namespaces"
>       default y
> diff --git a/kernel/.kunitconfig b/kernel/.kunitconfig
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7314dce05dc2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/.kunitconfig
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +CONFIG_KUNIT=y
> +CONFIG_USER_NS=y
> +CONFIG_USER_NAMESPACE_KUNIT_TEST=y
> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> index 786dbf0506ca..0e7373085af9 100644
> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> @@ -1417,3 +1417,7 @@ static __init int user_namespaces_init(void)
>       return 0;
>  }
>  subsys_initcall(user_namespaces_init);
> +
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USER_NAMESPACE_KUNIT_TEST)
> +#include "user_namespace_kunit.c"
> +#endif
> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c b/kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..88467361efdf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace_kunit.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * KUnit test for user namespace map insertion and sorting.
> + */
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h>
> +
> +static void test_user_ns_map_insert_base(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +     struct uid_gid_map map;
> +     struct uid_gid_extent extent;
> +     int i, ret;
> +
> +     memset(&map, 0, sizeof(map));
> +
> +     /* Insert up to UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS (5) elements */
> +     for (i = 0; i < UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS; i++) {
> +             extent.first = i * 10;
> +             extent.lower_first = i * 100;
> +             extent.count = 5;
> +
> +             ret = insert_extent(&map, &extent);
> +             KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.nr_extents, i + 1);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.extent[i].first, i * 10);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.extent[i].lower_first, i * 100);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.extent[i].count, 5);
> +     }
> +}

The extended test below already tests everything the 'base' one does.
Do we need both?

> +
> +static void test_user_ns_map_insert_extended(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +     struct uid_gid_map map;
> +     struct uid_gid_extent extent;
> +     int i, ret;
> +
> +     memset(&map, 0, sizeof(map));
> +
> +     /* Insert more than UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS (e.g., 10) elements */

When UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS is ever increased, this might not be true 
anymore.
Add an assertion or make the iteration count dynamic.

> +     for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> +             int value = 9 - i;
> +
> +             extent.first = value * 10;
> +             extent.lower_first = value * 100;
> +             extent.count = 5;
> +
> +             ret = insert_extent(&map, &extent);
> +             KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.nr_extents, i + 1);
> +
> +             if (i < UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS) {
> +                     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.extent[i].first, value * 10);
> +             } else {
> +                     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].first, value * 10);
> +                     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].lower_first, value 
>  * 100);
> +                     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].count, 5);
> +             }
> +     }
> +
> +     /* Now sort the map to set up reverse mapping */
> +     ret = sort_idmaps(&map);
> +     KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +     KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, map.reverse);
> +
> +     /* Verify sorting is correct */
> +     for (i = 0; i < map.nr_extents; i++) {
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].first, i * 10);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].lower_first, i * 100);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.forward[i].count, 5);
> +
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.reverse[i].first, i * 10);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.reverse[i].lower_first, i * 100);
> +             KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, map.reverse[i].count, 5);
> +     }

Isn't this the same as the original order?

> +
> +     kfree(map.forward);
> +     kfree(map.reverse);
> +}

(...)

Reply via email to