Canonical Voices

Posts tagged with 'bugs'

Colin Ian King

Finding kernel bugs with cppcheck

For the past year I have been running the cppcheck static analyzer against the linux kernel sources to see if it can detect any bugs introduced by new commits. Most of the bugs being found are minor thinkos, null pointer de-referencing, uninitialized variables, memory leaks and mistakes in error handling paths.

A useful feature of cppcheck is the --force option that will check against all the configurations in the source (and the kernel does have many!).  This allows us to check for code that may not be exercised much (because it is normally not built in with most config options) or even find dead code.

The downside of using the --force option is that each source file may need to be checked multiple times for each configuration.  For ~20800 sources files this can take a 24 processor server several hours to process.  Errors and warnings are then compared to previous runs (a delta), making it relatively easy to spot new issues on each run.

We also use the latest sources from the cppcheck git repository.  The upside of this is that new static analysis features are used early and this can result in finding existing bugs that previous versions of cppcheck missed.

A typical cppcheck run against the linux kernel source finds about 600 potential errors and 1700 warnings; however a lot of these are false positives.  These need to be individually eyeballed to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Finally, the data is passed through a gnu plot script to generate a trend graph so I can see how errors (red) and warnings (green) are progressing over time:


..note that the large changes in the graph are mostly with features being enabled (or fixed) in cppcheck.

I have been running the same experiment with smatch too, however I am finding that cppcheck seems to have better code coverage because of the --force option and seems to have less false positives.   As it stands, I am finding that the most productive time for finding issues is around the -rc1 and -rc2 merge times (obviously when most of the the major changes land in the kernel).  The outcome of this work has been a bunch of small fixes landing in the kernel to address bugs that cppcheck has found.

Anyhow, cppcheck is an excellent open source static analyzer for C and C++ that I'd heartily recommend as it does seem to catch useful bugs.

Read more
Colin Ian King

Finding small bugs

Over the past few months I've been using static code analysis tools such as cppcheck, Coverity Scan and also smatch on various open source projects.   I've generally found that most open source code is fairly well written, however, most suffer a common pattern of bugs on the error handling paths.  Typically, these are not free'ing up memory or freeing up memory incorrectly.  Other frequent bugs are not initialising variables and overly complex code paths that introduce subtle bugs when certain rare conditions are occur.  Most of these bugs are small and very rarely hit; some of these just silently do things wrong while others can potentially trigger segmentation faults.

The --force option in cppcheck to force the checking of every build configuration has been very useful in finding code paths that are rarely built, executed or tested and hence are likely to contain bugs.

I'm coming to the conclusion that whenever I have to look at some new code I should take 5 minutes or so throwing it at various static code analysis tools to see what pops out and being a good citizen and fixing these and sending these upstream. It's not too much effort and helps reduce some of those more obscure bugs that rarely bite but do linger around in code.

Read more
Colin Ian King

Testing eCryptfs

Over the past several months I've been occasionally back-porting a bunch of eCryptfs patches onto older Ubuntu releases.  Each back-ported fix needs to be properly sanity checked and so I've been writing test cases for each one and adding them to the eCryptfs test suite.

To get hold of the test suite, check it out using bzr:

 bzr checkout lp:ecryptfs  
and install the dependencies so one can build the test suite:
 sudo apt-get install debhelper autotools-dev autoconf automake \
intltool libtool libgcrypt11-dev libglib2.0-dev libkeyutils-dev \
libnss3-dev libpam0g-dev pkg-config python-dev swig acl \
ecryptfs-utils
If you want to test eCrytpfs with xfs and btrfs as the lower file system onto which eCryptfs is mounted, then one needs to also install the tools for these:
 sudo apt-get install xfsprogs btrfs-tools  
And then build the test programs:
 cd ecryptfs  
autoreconf -ivf
intltoolize -c -f
./configure --enable-tests --disable-pywrap
make
To run the tests, one needs to create lower and upper mount points. The tests allow one to create ext2, ext3, ext4, xfs or btrfs loop-back mounted file systems on the lower mount point, and then eCryptfs is mounted on the upper mount point on top.   To create these, use something like:
 sudo mkdir /lower /upper  
The loop-back file system image needs to be placed somewhere too, I generally place mine in a directory /tmp/image, so this needs creating too:
 mkdir /tmp/image  
There are two categories of tests, "safe" and "destructive".  Safe tests should run in such a ways as to not lock up the machine.  Destructive tests try hard to force bugs that can cause kernel oopses or panics. One specifies the test category with the -c option.  Now to run the tests, use:
 sudo ./tests/run_tests.sh -K -c safe -b 1000000 -D /tmp/image -l /lower -u /upper  
The -K option tells the test suite to run the kernel specific tests. These are the ones I am generally interested in since I'm testing kernel patches.

The -b option specifies the size in 1K blocks of the loop-back mounted /lower file system size.  I generally use 1000000 blocks as a minimum.

The -D option specifies the path where the temporary loop-back mounted image is kept and the -l and -u options specified the paths of the lower and upper mount points.

By default the tests will use an ext4 lower filesystem. One can also run specify which file systems to run the tests on using the -f option, this can be a comma separated list of one or more file systems, for example:
 sudo ./tests/run_tests.sh -K -c safe -b 1000000 -D /tmp/image -l /lower -u /upper \
-f ext2,ext3,ext4,xfs
And also, instead of running a bunch of tests, one can just a particular test using the -t option:
 sudo ./tests/run_tests.sh -K -c safe -b 1000000 -D /tmp/image -l /lower -u /upper \
-f ext2,ext3,ext4,xfs -t lp-926292.sh
..which tests the fix for LaunchPad bug 926292
 
We also run these tests regularly on new kernel images to ensure we don't introduce and regressions.   As it stands, I'm currently adding in tests for each bug fix that we back-port and for most new bugs that require a thorough test. I hope to expand the breadth of the tests to ensure we get better general test coverage.

And finally, thanks to Tyler Hicks for writing the test framework and for his valuable help in describing how to construct a bunch of these tests.

Read more
Colin Ian King

Ubuntu Kernel Team Bug Policies

Got a Ubuntu kernel related bug and you need help in report it? Or got an audio bug that's kernel related and you want to log the bug? Need advice or hints on how to gather kernel oops messages into a bug report? Or need to figure out how to report a bug upstream?

Well if you need this kind of help, then look no further than the Ubuntu Kernel Bug Policies wiki page. It's got a load of helpful information on kernel bug reporting and also how bug states are recorded from being initially reported, triaged, processed by a kernel developer and fixed.

We hope this will take the pain out of reporting bugs and helping you understand the bug fixing process. Kudos to Leann Ogasawara for this wiki page!


Read more