Hi Ricardo,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 02:32:53PM -0700, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> Add a new test for stage 2 faults when using different combinations of
> guest accesses (e.g., write, S1PTW), backing source type (e.g., anon)
> and types of faults (e.g., read on hugetlbfs with a hole). The next
> commits will add different handling methods and more faults (e.g., uffd
> and dirty logging). This first commit starts by adding two sanity checks
> for all types of accesses: AF setting by the hw, and accessing memslots
> with holes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c | 695 ++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/processor.h | 6 +
> 3 files changed, 702 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> index e4497a3a27d4..13b913225ae7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> @@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ 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/page_fault_test
> 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/page_fault_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..bdda4e3fcdaa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
[...]
> +/* Compare and swap instruction. */
> +static void guest_cas(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t val;
> +
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(guest_check_lse(), 1);
Why not just GUEST_ASSERT(guest_check_lse()) ?
> + asm volatile(".arch_extension lse\n"
> + "casal %0, %1, [%2]\n"
> + :: "r" (0), "r" (TEST_DATA), "r" (guest_test_memory));
> + val = READ_ONCE(*guest_test_memory);
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, TEST_DATA);
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_read64(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t val;
> +
> + val = READ_ONCE(*guest_test_memory);
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, 0);
> +}
> +
> +/* Address translation instruction */
> +static void guest_at(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t par;
> + uint64_t paddr;
> +
> + asm volatile("at s1e1r, %0" :: "r" (guest_test_memory));
> + par = read_sysreg(par_el1);
I believe you need explicit synchronization (an isb) before the fault
information is guaranteed visibile in PAR_EL1.
> + /* Bit 1 indicates whether the AT was successful */
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(par & 1, 0);
> + /* The PA in bits [51:12] */
> + paddr = par & (((1ULL << 40) - 1) << 12);
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(paddr, memslot[TEST].gpa);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * The size of the block written by "dc zva" is guaranteed to be between (2 <<
> + * 0) and (2 << 9), which is safe in our case as we need the write to happen
> + * for at least a word, and not more than a page.
> + */
> +static void guest_dc_zva(void)
> +{
> + uint16_t val;
> +
> + asm volatile("dc zva, %0\n"
> + "dsb ish\n"
nit: use the dsb() macro instead. Extremely minor, but makes it a bit
more obvious to the reader. Or maybe I need to get my eyes checked ;-)
> + :: "r" (guest_test_memory));
> + val = READ_ONCE(*guest_test_memory);
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, 0);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Pre-indexing loads and stores don't have a valid syndrome (ESR_EL2.ISV==0).
> + * And that's special because KVM must take special care with those: they
> + * should still count as accesses for dirty logging or user-faulting, but
> + * should be handled differently on mmio.
> + */
> +static void guest_ld_preidx(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t val;
> + uint64_t addr = TEST_GVA - 8;
> +
> + /*
> + * This ends up accessing "TEST_GVA + 8 - 8", where "TEST_GVA - 8" is
> + * in a gap between memslots not backing by anything.
> + */
> + asm volatile("ldr %0, [%1, #8]!"
> + : "=r" (val), "+r" (addr));
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, 0);
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(addr, TEST_GVA);
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_st_preidx(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t val = TEST_DATA;
> + uint64_t addr = TEST_GVA - 8;
> +
> + asm volatile("str %0, [%1, #8]!"
> + : "+r" (val), "+r" (addr));
> +
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(addr, TEST_GVA);
> + val = READ_ONCE(*guest_test_memory);
> +}
> +
> +static bool guest_set_ha(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t mmfr1 = read_sysreg(id_aa64mmfr1_el1);
> + uint64_t hadbs, tcr;
> +
> + /* Skip if HA is not supported. */
> + hadbs = FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64MMFR1_HADBS), mmfr1);
> + if (hadbs == 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + tcr = read_sysreg(tcr_el1) | TCR_EL1_HA;
> + write_sysreg(tcr, tcr_el1);
> + isb();
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static bool guest_clear_pte_af(void)
> +{
> + *((uint64_t *)TEST_PTE_GVA) &= ~PTE_AF;
> + flush_tlb_page(TEST_PTE_GVA);
Don't you want to actually flush TEST_GVA to force the TLB fill when you
poke the address again? This looks like you're flushing the VA of the
*PTE* not the test address.
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static void guest_check_pte_af(void)
nit: call this guest_test_pte_af(). You use the guest_check_* pattern
for test preconditions (like guest_check_lse()).
> +{
> + flush_tlb_page(TEST_PTE_GVA);
What is the purpose of this flush? I believe you are actually depending
on a dsb(ish) between the hardware PTE update and the load below. Or,
that's at least what I gleaned from the jargon of DDI0487H.a D5.4.13
'Ordering of hardware updates to the translation tables'.
> + GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(*((uint64_t *)TEST_PTE_GVA) & PTE_AF, PTE_AF);
> +}
[...]
> +static void sync_stats_from_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> +{
> + struct event_cnt *ec = addr_gva2hva(vm, (uint64_t)&events);
> +
> + events.aborts += ec->aborts;
> +}
I believe you can use sync_global_from_guest() instead of this.
> +void fail_vcpu_run_no_handler(int ret)
> +{
> + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected vcpu run failure\n");
> +}
> +
> +extern unsigned char __exec_test;
> +
> +void noinline __return_0x77(void)
> +{
> + asm volatile("__exec_test: mov x0, #0x77\n"
> + "ret\n");
> +}
> +
> +static void load_exec_code_for_test(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t *code, *c;
> +
> + assert(TEST_EXEC_GVA - TEST_GVA);
> + code = memslot[TEST].hva + 8;
> +
> + /*
> + * We need the cast to be separate in order for the compiler to not
> + * complain with: "‘memcpy’ forming offset [1, 7] is out of the bounds
> + * [0, 1] of object ‘__exec_test’ with type ‘unsigned char’"
> + */
> + c = (uint64_t *)&__exec_test;
> + memcpy(code, c, 8);
Don't you need to sync D$ and I$?
--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
