Re: [PATCH 2/2] moderr: add module error injection tool

[Daniel Gomez]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 02:17:48PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:57:05PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 09:02:19AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:12 AM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Add support for a module error injection tool. The tool
> > > > > can inject errors in the annotated module kernel functions
> > > > > such as complete_formation(), do_init_module() and
> > > > > module_enable_rodata_after_init(). Module name and module function are
> > > > > required parameters to have control over the error injection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example: Inject error -22 to module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init for
> > > > > brd module:
> > > > >
> > > > > sudo moderr --modname=brd --modfunc=module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init \
> > > > > --error=-22 --trace
> > > > > Monitoring module error injection... Hit Ctrl-C to end.
> > > > > MODULE     ERROR FUNCTION
> > > > > brd        -22   module_enable_rodata_after_init()
> > > > >
> > > > > Kernel messages:
> > > > > [   89.463690] brd: module loaded
> > > > > [   89.463855] brd: module_enable_rodata_ro_after_init() returned -22,
> > > > > ro_after_init data might still be writable
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tools/bpf/Makefile            |  13 ++-
> > > > >  tools/bpf/moderr/.gitignore   |   2 +
> > > > >  tools/bpf/moderr/Makefile     |  95 +++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  tools/bpf/moderr/moderr.bpf.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  tools/bpf/moderr/moderr.c     | 236 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  tools/bpf/moderr/moderr.h     |  40 +++++++
> > > > >  6 files changed, 510 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > The tool looks useful, but we don't add tools to the kernel repo.
> > > > It has to stay out of tree.
> > > 
> > > For selftests we do add random tools.
> > > 
> > > > The value of error injection is not clear to me.
> > > 
> > > It is of great value, since it deals with corner cases which are
> > > otherwise hard to reproduce in places which a real error can be
> > > catostrophic.
> > > 
> > > > Other places in the kernel use it to test paths in the kernel
> > > > that are difficult to do otherwise.
> > > 
> > > Right.
> > > 
> > > > These 3 functions don't seem to be in this category.
> > > 
> > > That's the key here we should focus on. The problem is when a maintainer
> > > *does* agree that adding an error injection entry is useful for testing,
> > > and we have a developer willing to do the work to help test / validate
> > > it. In this case, this error case is rare but we do want to strive to
> > > test this as we ramp up and extend our modules selftests.
> > > 
> > > Then there is the aspect of how to mitigate how instrusive code changes
> > > to allow error injection are. In 2021 we evaluated the prospect of error
> > > injection in-kernel long ago for other areas like the block layer for
> > > add_disk() failures [0] but the minimal interface to enable this from
> > > userspace with debugfs was considered just too intrusive.
> > > 
> > > This effort tried to evaluate what this could look like with eBPF to
> > > mitigate the required in-kernel code, and I believe the light weight
> > > nature of it by just requiring a sprinkle with ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION()
> > > suffices to my taste.
> > > 
> > > So, perhaps the tools aspect can just go in:
> > > 
> > > tools/testing/selftests/module/
> > 
> > but why would it be module-specific?
> 
> Gotta start somewhere.
> 
> > Based on its current implementation
> > and discussion about inject.py it seems to be generic enough to be
> > useful to test any function annotated with ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION().
> > 
> > As xe driver maintainer, it may be interesting to use such a tool:
> > 
> > 	$ git grep ALLOW_ERROR_INJECT -- drivers/gpu/drm/xe | wc -l  	23
> > 
> > How does this approach compare to writing the function name on debugfs
> > (the current approach in xe's testsuite)?
> > 
> > 	fail_function @ https://docs.kernel.org/fault-injection/fault-injection.html#fault-injection-capabilities-infrastructure
> > 	https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/blob/master/tests/intel/xe_fault_injection.c?ref_type=heads#L108
> > 
> > If you decide to have the tool to live somewhere else, then kmod repo
> > could be a candidate.
> 
> Would we install this upon install target?
> 
> Danny can decide on this :)
> 
> > Although I think having it in kernel tree is
> > simpler maintenance-wise.
> 
> I think we have at least two users upstream who can make use of it. If
> we end up going through tools/testing/selftests/module/ first, can't
> you make use of it later?

What are the features in debugfs required to be useful for xe that we can
port to an eBPF version? I see from the link provided the use of probability,
interval, times and space but these are configured to allways trigger the error.
Is that right?

> 
>   Luis