Hi Raghavendra, On 4/27/22 12:59 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:50 AM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 4/23/22 8:03 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:Introduce a KVM selftest to check the hypercall interface for arm64 platforms. The test validates the user-space' [GET|SET]_ONE_REG interface to read/write the psuedo-firmware registers as well as its effects on the guest upon certain configurations. Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 + .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c | 335 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 337 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.cThere are comments about @false_hvc_info[] and some nits, as below. Please evaluate and improve if it makes sense to you. Otherwise, it looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx>diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore index 1bb575dfc42e..b17e464ec661 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ /aarch64/arch_timer /aarch64/debug-exceptions /aarch64/get-reg-list +/aarch64/hypercalls /aarch64/psci_test /aarch64/vcpu_width_config /aarch64/vgic_init diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile index c2cf4d318296..97eef0c03d3b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += system_counter_offset_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/arch_timer TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/debug-exceptions TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/get-reg-list +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/hypercalls TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/psci_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vcpu_width_config TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f404343a0ae3 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c @@ -0,0 +1,335 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only + +/* hypercalls: Check the ARM64's psuedo-firmware bitmap register interface. + * + * The test validates the basic hypercall functionalities that are exposed + * via the psuedo-firmware bitmap register. This includes the registers' + * read/write behavior before and after the VM has started, and if the + * hypercalls are properly masked or unmasked to the guest when disabled or + * enabled from the KVM userspace, respectively. + */ + +#include <errno.h> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> +#include <asm/kvm.h> +#include <kvm_util.h> + +#include "processor.h" + +#define FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(max_feat_bit) (GENMASK(max_feat_bit, 0)) + +/* Last valid bits of the bitmapped firmware registers */ +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0 +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0 +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 1 + +struct kvm_fw_reg_info { + uint64_t reg; /* Register definition */ + uint64_t max_feat_bit; /* Bit that represents the upper limit of the feature-map */ +}; + +#define FW_REG_INFO(r) \ + { \ + .reg = r, \ + .max_feat_bit = r##_BIT_MAX, \ + } + +static const struct kvm_fw_reg_info fw_reg_info[] = { + FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP), + FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP), + FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP), +}; + +enum test_stage { + TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE, + TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED, + TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED, + TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO, + TEST_STAGE_END, +}; + +static int stage = TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE; + +struct test_hvc_info { + uint32_t func_id; + uint64_t arg1; +}; + +#define TEST_HVC_INFO(f, a1) \ + { \ + .func_id = f, \ + .arg1 = a1, \ + } + +static const struct test_hvc_info hvc_info[] = { + /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP */ + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION, 0), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID, 0), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32, 0), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64, 0), + + /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP */ + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST, 0), + + /* KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP */ + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, + ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID, KVM_PTP_VIRT_COUNTER), +}; + +/* Feed false hypercall info to test the KVM behavior */ +static const struct test_hvc_info false_hvc_info[] = { + /* Feature support check against a different family of hypercalls */ + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64), + TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64), +}; +I don't see too much benefits of @false_hvc_info[] because NOT_SUPPORTED is always returned from its test case. I think it and its test case can be removed if you agree. I'm not sure if it was suggested by somebody else.While this is not exactly testing the bitmap firmware registers, the idea behind introducing false_hvc_info[] was to introduce some negative tests and see if KVM handles it well. Especially with *_FEATURES func_ids, we can accidentally introduce functional bugs in KVM, and these would act as our safety net. I was planning to also test with some reserved hypercall numbers, just to test if the kernel doesn't panic for some reason.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. It makes sense to me.
+static void guest_test_hvc(const struct test_hvc_info *hc_info) +{ + unsigned int i; + struct arm_smccc_res res; + unsigned int hvc_info_arr_sz; + + hvc_info_arr_sz = + hc_info == hvc_info ? ARRAY_SIZE(hvc_info) : ARRAY_SIZE(false_hvc_info); + + for (i = 0; i < hvc_info_arr_sz; i++, hc_info++) { + memset(&res, 0, sizeof(res)); + smccc_hvc(hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res); + + switch (stage) { + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED: + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO: + GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, + res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg1); + break; + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED: + GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, + res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg1); + break; + default: + GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage); + } + } +} + +static void guest_code(void) +{ + while (stage != TEST_STAGE_END) { + switch (stage) { + case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE: + break; + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED: + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED: + guest_test_hvc(hvc_info); + break; + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO: + guest_test_hvc(false_hvc_info); + break; + default: + GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage); + } + + GUEST_SYNC(stage); + } + + GUEST_DONE(); +} + +static int set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t val) +{ + struct kvm_one_reg reg = { + .id = id, + .addr = (uint64_t)&val, + }; + + return _vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®); +} + +static void get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t *addr) +{ + struct kvm_one_reg reg = { + .id = id, + .addr = (uint64_t)addr, + }; + + vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, ®); +} + +struct st_time { + uint32_t rev; + uint32_t attr; + uint64_t st_time; +}; + +#define STEAL_TIME_SIZE ((sizeof(struct st_time) + 63) & ~63) +#define ST_GPA_BASE (1 << 30) + +static void steal_time_init(struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ + uint64_t st_ipa = (ulong)ST_GPA_BASE; + unsigned int gpages; + struct kvm_device_attr dev = { + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL, + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_IPA, + .addr = (uint64_t)&st_ipa, + }; + + gpages = vm_calc_num_guest_pages(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, STEAL_TIME_SIZE); + vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, ST_GPA_BASE, 1, gpages, 0); + + vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &dev); +} + +static void test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ + uint64_t val; + unsigned int i; + int ret; + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) { + const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i]; + + /* First 'read' should be an upper limit of the features supported */ + get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val); + TEST_ASSERT(val == FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit), + "Expected all the features to be set for reg: 0x%lx; expected: 0x%lx; read: 0x%lx\n", + reg_info->reg, FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit), val); + + /* Test a 'write' by disabling all the features of the register map */ + ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, 0); + TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, + "Failed to clear all the features of reg: 0x%lx; ret: %d\n", + reg_info->reg, errno); + + get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val); + TEST_ASSERT(val == 0, + "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n", reg_info->reg); + + /* + * Test enabling a feature that's not supported. + * Avoid this check if all the bits are occupied. + */ + if (reg_info->max_feat_bit < 63) { + ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, BIT(reg_info->max_feat_bit + 1)); + TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EINVAL, + "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting an unsupported feature for reg: 0x%lx\n", + errno, reg_info->reg); + } + } +}Just in case :) ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, GENMASK(63, reg_info->max_feat_bit + 1));It may be better to cover the entire range, but to test only the (max_feat_bit + 1) gives us the advantage of checking if there's any discrepancy between the kernel and the test, now that *_BIT_MAX are not a part of UAPI headers. Probably also include your test along with the existing one?
Thanks for your explanation again. Lets keep it as it is then.
+ +static void test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ + uint64_t val; + unsigned int i; + int ret; + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) { + const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i]; + + /* + * Before starting the VM, the test clears all the bits. + * Check if that's still the case. + */ + get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val); + TEST_ASSERT(val == 0, + "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n", + reg_info->reg); + + /* + * Set all the features for this register again. KVM shouldn't + * allow this as the VM is running. + */ + ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit)); + TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EBUSY, + "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting a feature while VM is running for reg: 0x%lx\n", + errno, reg_info->reg); + } +} +I guess you want to check -EBUSY is returned. In that case, the comments here could be clearer, something like below to emphasize '-EBUSY'. /* * After VM runs for once, -EBUSY should be returned on attempt * to set features. Check if the correct errno is returned. */Sounds good.+static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void) +{ + struct kvm_vm *vm; + + vm = vm_create_default(0, 0, guest_code); + + ucall_init(vm, NULL); + steal_time_init(vm); + + return vm; +} + +static struct kvm_vm *test_guest_stage(struct kvm_vm *vm) +{ + struct kvm_vm *ret_vm = vm; + + pr_debug("Stage: %d\n", stage); + + switch (stage) { + case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE: + test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(vm); + break; + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED: + /* Start a new VM so that all the features are now enabled by default */ + kvm_vm_free(vm); + ret_vm = test_vm_create(); + break; + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED: + case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO: + break; + default: + TEST_FAIL("Unknown test stage: %d\n", stage); + } + + stage++; + sync_global_to_guest(vm, stage); + + return ret_vm; +} + +static void test_run(void) +{ + struct kvm_vm *vm; + struct ucall uc; + bool guest_done = false; + + vm = test_vm_create(); + + test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(vm); + + while (!guest_done) { + vcpu_run(vm, 0); + + switch (get_ucall(vm, 0, &uc)) { + case UCALL_SYNC: + vm = test_guest_stage(vm); + break; + case UCALL_DONE: + guest_done = true; + break; + case UCALL_ABORT: + TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld\n\tvalues: 0x%lx, 0x%lx; 0x%lx, stage: %u", + (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__, uc.args[1], + uc.args[2], uc.args[3], uc.args[4], stage); + break; + default: + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit\n"); + } + } + + kvm_vm_free(vm); +} + +int main(void) +{ + setbuf(stdout, NULL); + + test_run(); + return 0; +}
[...] Thanks, Gavin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
