[PATCH v15 15/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout()
bot+bpf-ci at kernel.org
bot+bpf-ci at kernel.org
Mon Aug 31 14:16:53 PDT 2026
> diff --git a/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c b/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
> index 60f121fe5472..16a39f1076e2 100644
> --- a/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
> +++ b/lib/tests/barrier-timeout-test.c
[ ... ]
> +static const struct smp_cond_expiry_params expiry_params_list[] = {
> + /* timeout_ns is invalid/out-of-range */
> + { .clk_unit = 0, .timeout_ns = -1LL, .miniters = -1, .maxiters = 0, .desc = "invalid (-1LL)", },
> + { .clk_unit = 0, .timeout_ns = ~0ULL, .miniters = -1, .maxiters = 0, .desc = "invalid (~0ULL)", },
> + { .clk_unit = 0, .timeout_ns = S64_MAX+1ULL, .miniters = -1, .maxiters = 0, .desc = "out-of-range (S64_MAX+1)", },
> + { .clk_unit = 0, .timeout_ns = U64_MAX, .miniters = -1, .maxiters = 0, .desc = "out-of-range (U64_MAX)", },
> + { .clk_unit = 0, .timeout_ns = 0, .miniters = -1, .maxiters = 1, .desc = "degenerate (0)", },
> +
> + /* timeout_ns is valid */
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 28), .timeout_ns = 1, .miniters = 1, .maxiters = -1, .desc = "1", },
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 28), .timeout_ns = (0x1ULL << 30), .miniters = 1 << (30-28), .maxiters = -1, .desc = "1<<30", },
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 28), .timeout_ns = S32_MAX, .miniters = 1 << (31-28), .maxiters = -1, .desc = "S32_MAX", },
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 28), .timeout_ns = U32_MAX, .miniters = 1 << (32-28), .maxiters = -1, .desc = "U32_MAX", },
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 28), .timeout_ns = (0x1ULL << 33), .miniters = 1 << (33-28), .maxiters = -1, .desc = "1<<33", },
> + { .clk_unit = (0x1ULL << 58), .timeout_ns = S64_MAX, .miniters = 1 << (63-58), .maxiters = -1, .desc = "S64_MAX", },
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +};
Can the last row actually test timeout expiry? The synthetic clock overflows
before the deadline can be reached.
synthetic_clock() advances by clk_unit per evaluation:
clk->end_time += clk->extra;
clk->niters++;
return clk->end_time;
With clk_unit = 1<<58 and timeout_ns = S64_MAX, the deadline computed in
include/asm-generic/barrier.h becomes __scl_time_end = 2^58 + S64_MAX, which
needs the clock to reach 33 * 2^58 to expire. But the 32nd evaluation already
yields 32 * 2^58 == 2^63, which is S64_MIN as an s64, so the very next check
in __smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() breaks on the failure arm:
if (__scl_time_now <= 0 || __scl_timeout <= 0) {
VAL = READ_ONCE(*__PTR);
break;
}
So niters == 32 exactly and the break is 'time_expr_ns returned a negative
value' rather than 'timeout expired'. .miniters = 1 << (63-58) == 32 makes
KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, clk.niters, 32) pass by exactly zero margin, but this
doesn't distinguish an implementation that honours the timeout from one that
bails out early on clock failure.
> +static void test_smp_cond_relaxed(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + const struct smp_cond_expiry_params *p = test->param_value;
> + struct clock_state clk = {
> + .start_time = 0,
> + .end_time = 0,
> + .extra = p->clk_unit,
> + .niters = 0,
> + };
> + s64 runtime;
^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> + flag = 0;
> + smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout(&flag,
> + 0,
> + synthetic_clock(&clk),
> + p->timeout_ns);
> +
> + runtime = (u64)clk.end_time - (u64)clk.start_time;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
runtime is declared s64 but assigned an unsigned expression. For the S64_MAX
row this stores 2^63, which is a negative s64. The following check only passes
because typeof(right) is u64, which converts runtime back to unsigned:
if (p->maxiters != 0)
KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, runtime, p->timeout_ns);
Would declaring runtime as u64 (matching the casts on both operands) be
clearer?
[ ... ]
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/33438155296
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list