| Message ID | 20220215074824.188440-1-thuth@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal guests | expand |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:48:24 +0100 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal > guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It > would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has > the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for > these two memops. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> looks rather straightforward Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ > vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ > > + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ > + ksmo.gaddr = 0; > + ksmo.flags = 0; > + ksmo.size = 8; > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; > + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; > + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); > + > kvm_vm_free(vm); > > return 0;
On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote: > Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal > guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It > would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has > the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for > these two memops. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ > vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ > > + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ > + ksmo.gaddr = 0; > + ksmo.flags = 0; > + ksmo.size = 8; > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; > + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; > + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; What is the rational for that constant? Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct? > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); > + > kvm_vm_free(vm); > > return 0;
On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal >> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It >> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has >> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for >> these two memops. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >> run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ >> vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ >> >> + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ >> + ksmo.gaddr = 0; >> + ksmo.flags = 0; >> + ksmo.size = 8; >> + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; >> + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; >> + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; > > What is the rational for that constant? > Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct? Right, it's rather a random value. Thomas
On 2/15/22 10:59, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: >> On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal >>> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It >>> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has >>> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for >>> these two memops. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >>> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >>> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >>> run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ >>> vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ >>> >>> + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ >>> + ksmo.gaddr = 0; >>> + ksmo.flags = 0; >>> + ksmo.size = 8; >>> + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; >>> + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; >>> + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; >> >> What is the rational for that constant? >> Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct? > > Right, it's rather a random value. Ah, ok. Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> > > Thomas >
Am 15.02.22 um 08:48 schrieb Thomas Huth: > Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal > guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It > would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has > the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for > these two memops. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Thanks, applied. > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ > vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ > > + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ > + ksmo.gaddr = 0; > + ksmo.flags = 0; > + ksmo.size = 8; > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; > + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; > + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); > + > kvm_vm_free(vm); > > return 0;
On 2/15/22 12:48 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal > guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It > would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has > the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for > these two memops. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c > @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ > vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ > > + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ > + ksmo.gaddr = 0; > + ksmo.flags = 0; > + ksmo.size = 8; > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; > + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; > + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); Printing what passed would be a good addition to understand the tests that get run and expected to pass. > + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; > + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); > + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, > + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); > + Same here. > kvm_vm_free(vm); > > return 0; > Something to consider in a follow-on patch and future changes to these tests. Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> thanks, -- Shuah
On 15/02/2022 16.25, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 2/15/22 12:48 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal >> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It >> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has >> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for >> these two memops. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c >> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >> run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ >> vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ >> + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ >> + ksmo.gaddr = 0; >> + ksmo.flags = 0; >> + ksmo.size = 8; >> + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; >> + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; >> + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; >> + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); >> + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, >> + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); > > Printing what passed would be a good addition to understand the tests that > get run and expected to pass. Yes, I agree ... I'll add that for a follow-up patch to my TODO list. >> + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; >> + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); >> + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, >> + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); >> + > > Same here. > >> kvm_vm_free(vm); >> return 0; >> > > Something to consider in a follow-on patch and future changes to these tests. > > Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Thanks! Thomas
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17)); /* Disable AR mode */ vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID); /* Run to sync new state */ + /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */ + ksmo.gaddr = 0; + ksmo.flags = 0; + ksmo.size = 8; + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ; + ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1; + ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0; + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode"); + ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE; + rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo); + TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL, + "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode"); + kvm_vm_free(vm); return 0;
Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for these two memops. Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)