Re: [RFC PATCH 22/30] Code tagging based fault injection

From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de,
	dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com,
	void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	ldufour@linux.ibm.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com,
	axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org,
	nathan@kernel.org, changbin.du@intel.com, ytcoode@gmail.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com,
	vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com,
	elver@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, songmuchun@bytedance.com,
	arnd@arndb.de, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com,
	minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com,
	kernel-team@android.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 22/30] Code tagging based fault injection
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:43:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bMeqvWQwqzG3nfcf0-VOjU7usxht5mKgUwMcOpWKRjxQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220831173010.wc5j3ycmfjx6ezfu@moria.home.lan>

 On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 19:30, Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> > > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
> > >
> > > This adds a new fault injection capability, based on code tagging.
> > >
> > > To use, simply insert somewhere in your code
> > >
> > >   dynamic_fault("fault_class_name")
> > >
> > > and check whether it returns true - if so, inject the error.
> > > For example
> > >
> > >   if (dynamic_fault("init"))
> > >       return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Hi Suren,
> >
> > If this is going to be used by mainline kernel, it would be good to
> > integrate this with fail_nth systematic fault injection:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/fault-inject.c#L109
> >
> > Otherwise these dynamic sites won't be tested by testing systems doing
> > systematic fault injection testing.
>
> That's a discussion we need to have, yeah. We don't want two distinct fault
> injection frameworks, we'll have to have a discussion as to whether this is (or
> can be) better enough to make a switch worthwhile, and whether a compatibility
> interface is needed - or maybe there's enough distinct interesting bits in both
> to make merging plausible?
>
> The debugfs interface for this fault injection code is necessarily different
> from our existing fault injection - this gives you a fault injection point _per
> callsite_, which is huge - e.g. for filesystem testing what I need is to be able
> to enable fault injection points within a given module. I can do that easily
> with this, not with our current fault injection.
>
> I think the per-callsite fault injection points would also be pretty valuable
> for CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_USERCOPY, too.
>
> OTOH, existing kernel fault injection can filter based on task - this fault
> injection framework doesn't have that. Easy enough to add, though. Similar for
> the interval/probability/ratelimit stuff.
>
> fail_function is the odd one out, I'm not sure how that would fit into this
> model. Everything else I've seen I think fits into this model.
>
> Also, it sounds like you're more familiar with our existing fault injection than
> I am, so if I've misunderstood anything about what it can do please do correct
> me.

What you are saying makes sense. But I can't say if we want to do a
global switch or not. I don't know how many existing users there are
(by users I mean automated testing b/c humans can switch for one-off
manual testing).

However, fail_nth that I mentioned is orthogonal to this. It's a
different mechanism to select the fault site that needs to be failed
(similar to what you mentioned as "interval/probability/ratelimit
stuff"). fail_nth allows to fail the specified n-th call site in the
specified task. And that's the only mechanism we use in
syzkaller/syzbot.
And I think it can be supported relatively easily (copy a few lines to
the "does this site needs to fail" check).

I don't know how exactly you want to use this new mechanism, but I
found fail_nth much better than any of the existing selection
mechanisms, including what this will add for specific site failing.

fail_nth allows to fail every site in a given test/syscall one-by-one
systematically. E.g. we can even have strace-like utility that repeats
the given test failing all sites in to systematically:
$ fail_all ./a_unit_test
This can be integrated into any CI system, e.g. running all LTP tests with this.

For file:line-based selection, first, we need to get these file:line
from somewhere; second, lines are changing over time so can't be
hardcoded in tests; third, it still needs to be per-task, since
unrelated processes can execute the same code.

One downside of fail_nth, though, is that it does not cover background
threads/async work. But we found that there are so many untested
synchronous error paths, that moving to background threads is not
necessary at this point.

> Interestingly: I just discovered from reading the code that
> CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER is a thing (hadn't before because it
> depends on !X86_64 - what?). That's cool, though.