From: no-reply@sashiko.virtuozzo.com
To: Vladimir Riabchun <vladimir.riabchun@virtuozzo.com>,
Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>,
ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com
Cc: devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH hci-8.1 v3 2/2] selftests: ve: Test sched_getaffinity in VE
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:22:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <010701a1872e7a0e-b9a72472-754e-4582-8ed8-c4019b63a955-000000@eu-central-1.amazonses.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261029-ct-invalid-nrpoc-v3-2-89d4b0b7d520@virtuozzo.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] selftests/ve: get_nth_cpu() bounds loop by sizeof(cpu_set_t) bytes, not CPU_SETSIZE
- [Medium] selftests/ve: expected CT CPU count taken from caller's affinity, not CT cpuset
- [Low] selftests/ve: FIXTURE_SETUP leaks CT cgroup if prepare_namespaces() ASSERT fails
--
commit 55fc819ea7f7954caf6a8e968697a2cc48fd1982
Author: Vladimir Riabchun <vladimir.riabchun@virtuozzo.com>
selftests: ve: Test sched_getaffinity in VE
This adds a selftest that checks sched_getaffinity() inside a VE respects
both the cgroup cpuset and the cpu.nr_cpus limit. It adds three test cases
and registers the binary in the Makefile and .gitignore.
Link: https://virtuozzo.atlassian.net/browse/VSTOR-141682
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ve/ve_sched_getaffinity_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/ve/ve_sched_getaffinity_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..98acc246ede0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ve/ve_sched_getaffinity_test.c
[ ... ]
> +static int get_nth_cpu(cpu_set_t *mask, int n)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*mask); i++) {
> + if (!CPU_ISSET(i, mask) || --n)
> + continue;
> +
> + return i;
> + }
> + return -1;
> +}
[Severity: Medium]
Is the loop bound in get_nth_cpu() correct? sizeof(*mask) is the size of
cpu_set_t in bytes (128), while CPU_ISSET() takes a bit index and the set
holds CPU_SETSIZE (1024) bits:
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*mask); i++) {
if (!CPU_ISSET(i, mask) || --n)
The scan stops at CPU 127. If the 2nd or 3rd allowed CPU in orig_cpuset
is numbered 128 or higher (for example under taskset, a restricted cpuset,
or a large sparse host), get_nth_cpu() returns -1.
update_cg_cpuset then fails ASSERT_GE(cpu_leave, 0), and limits_interaction
fails ASSERT_TRUE(c1 >= 0 && c3 >= 0), without sched_getaffinity() in the
VE being exercised.
The loop also compares a signed int with a size_t. Should the bound be
CPU_SETSIZE?
> +FIXTURE_SETUP(ve_getaff_test)
> +{
> + ASSERT_EQ(sched_getaffinity(getpid(), sizeof(cpu_set_t), &self->orig_cpuset), 0);
> + self->orig_cpucount = CPU_COUNT(&self->orig_cpuset);
[Severity: Medium]
Is orig_cpucount the right expected value for the CT? It is taken from the
runner's own affinity mask, not from the CT cgroup's effective cpuset.
In getaffinity_ve(), run_in_ve() forks a child that does:
enter_cgroup(cgv2_fd, ctid);
enter_namespaces(ctx, flags);
ret = fn(arg);
Nothing in the child restores the parent's affinity after joining the
cgroup. So the mask that __getaffinity_ve() reports derives from the CT
cgroup's cpuset, which is inherited from the parent cgroup.
I did not read cpuset_attach() in this tree. From memory of mainline, it
resets cpus_mask to the cgroup's effective_cpus on attach, but that is
unverified.
If the runner was restricted, for example with taskset -c 0,1 on a host
with more CPUs, the CT may report more CPUs than orig_cpucount. Then this
fails in update_cg_cpuset, nr_proc_bound and limits_interaction:
ASSERT_TRUE(check_cpumask_is_prefix(&in_ve, self->orig_cpucount));
Would it be better to derive the expected count from the CT cgroup's
effective cpuset, or to skip when the two differ?
Separately, sched_getaffinity() with a fixed sizeof(cpu_set_t) returns
EINVAL when nr_cpu_ids is greater than 1024. FIXTURE_SETUP asserts on that
call rather than skipping.
[ ... ]
> + self->ctid = make_ve(self->cgv2_fd, CTID_MIN);
> + ASSERT_GE(self->ctid, 0);
> +
> + ASSERT_EQ(prepare_namespaces(&self->ns_ctx, CLONE_NEWVE,
> + self->cgv2_fd, self->ctid), 0);
> +}
[Severity: Low]
Can this leak the CT cgroup created by make_ve()? If prepare_namespaces()
fails, the ASSERT_EQ() aborts FIXTURE_SETUP before setup_completed is set.
In kselftest_harness.h, __TEST_F_IMPL only calls the teardown when
_metadata->setup_completed is true:
if (_metadata->setup_completed && !fixture_name##_teardown_parent && \
__sync_bool_compare_and_swap(teardown, false, true)) \
fixture_name##_teardown(_metadata, self, variant->data); \
So FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(ve_getaff_test) never runs. close_namespace_fds(),
destroy_ve() and close(cgv2_fd) are all skipped.
I inferred, but did not verify in this tree, that the cgroup persists after
the process exits. If so, each leaked cgroup keeps the first free id in
the CTID_MIN..CTID_MAX range that make_ve() scans:
for (id = from; id < CTID_MAX; id++) {
snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%d", id);
if (faccessat(cgv2_fd, name, F_OK, 0) != 0 && errno == ENOENT)
break;
}
This only happens on a failure path. The same pattern exists in other ve
selftests such as ve_ns_owner_test and ve_perms_test, so this patch adds
another instance rather than a new class of problem.
Could the cleanup be done on that failure path, for example by destroying
the CT before asserting?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.vzint.dev/#/patchset/20261029-ct-invalid-nrpoc-v3-0-89d4b0b7d520@virtuozzo.com?part=2
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-29 10:16 [Devel] [PATCH hci-8.1 v3 0/2] sched: Fix incorrect nproc report inside CT Vladimir Riabchun
2026-10-29 10:16 ` [Devel] [PATCH hci-8.1 v3 1/2] sched: Fix sched_getaffinity syscall Vladimir Riabchun
2026-10-29 10:21 ` no-reply
2026-10-29 10:48 ` Vladimir Riabchun
2026-10-29 10:16 ` [Devel] [PATCH hci-8.1 v3 2/2] selftests: ve: Test sched_getaffinity in VE Vladimir Riabchun
2026-10-29 10:22 ` no-reply [this message]
2026-10-29 10:50 ` Vladimir Riabchun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=010701a1872e7a0e-b9a72472-754e-4582-8ed8-c4019b63a955-000000@eu-central-1.amazonses.com \
--to=no-reply@sashiko.virtuozzo.com \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=khorenko@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=vladimir.riabchun@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox