Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] s390x: Interception tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 29.05.2017 12:06, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Certain CPU instructions will cause an exit of the virtual
> machine. Run some of these instructions to check whether
> they are emulated right by KVM (or QEMU).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Note: This is the initial framework for running interception tests
>  ... more test will be added later (like testing exceptions once
>  we've got the infrastructure for this in place).

Working on a patch for that, will post that soon.

> 
>  For running this test with QEMU TCG, you need to apply the
>  patch for the TEST BLOCK instruction which has not been merged yet:
>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-05/msg04413.html
> 
>  s390x/Makefile    |  1 +
>  s390x/intercept.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 100 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 s390x/intercept.c

I think you should add that to s390x/unittests.cfg as well. (running all
tests)

> 
> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
> index e80add0..97745a1 100644
> --- a/s390x/Makefile
> +++ b/s390x/Makefile
> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
>  tests = $(TEST_DIR)/selftest.elf
> +tests += $(TEST_DIR)/intercept.elf
>  
>  all: directories test_cases
>  
> diff --git a/s390x/intercept.c b/s390x/intercept.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..b0057e3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/s390x/intercept.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> +/*
> + * Interception tests - for s390x CPU instruction that cause a VM exit
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2017 Red Hat Inc
> + *
> + * Authors:
> + *  Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + *
> + * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> + * under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License version 2.
> + */
> +#include <libcflat.h>
> +#include <asm/page.h>
> +
> +static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE)));
> +
> +/* Test the SET PREFIX and STORE PREFIX instructions */
> +static void test_prefix(void)
> +{
> +	uint32_t old_prefix;
> +	uint32_t new_prefix = (uint32_t)(intptr_t)pagebuf;
> +
> +	memset(pagebuf, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Temporarily change the prefix page to our buffer, and store
> +	 * some facility bits there ... at least some of them should be
> +	 * set in our buffer afterwards.
> +	 */
> +	asm volatile (
> +		" stpx	%0\n"
> +		" spx	%1\n"
> +		" stfl	0\n"

you could add another stpx to tmp_prefix here and test below if stpx
actually return the correct value (e.g. not simply always 0).

> +		" spx	%0\n"
> +		: "=m"(old_prefix) : "m"(new_prefix) : "memory");
> +	report("spx + stfl", pagebuf[200] != 0);

I have a patch that introduced the struct lowcore and generates
asm-offsets, will post that soon.

> +}
> +
> +/* Test the STORE CPU ADDRESS instruction */
> +static void test_stap(void)
> +{
> +	uint16_t cpuid;
> +
> +	cpuid = 0xffff;

you could initialize that directly.

> +	asm volatile ("stap %0\n" : "+m"(cpuid));
> +	report("get cpu id", cpuid != 0xffff);
> +}
> +
> +/* Test the TEST BLOCK instruction */
> +static void test_testblock(void)
> +{
> +	int cc;
> +
> +	memset(pagebuf, 0xaa, PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> +	asm volatile (
> +		" lghi	0,0\n"
> +		" tb	%1\n"
> +		" ipm	%0\n"
> +		" srl	%0,28\n"
> +		: "=d" (cc)
> +		: "a"(pagebuf + 0x123)
> +		: "memory", "0", "cc");
> +	report("page cleared",
> +	       cc == 0 && pagebuf[0] == 0 &&  pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE - 1] == 0);
> +}
> +
> +struct {
> +	const char *name;
> +	void (*func)(void);
> +} tests[] = {
> +	{ "prefix", test_prefix },
> +	{ "stap", test_stap },
> +	{ "testblock", test_testblock },
> +	{ NULL, NULL }
> +};
> +
> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> +{
> +	int all = 0;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	report_prefix_push("intercept");
> +
> +	if (argc < 2 || (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "all")))
> +		all = 1;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; tests[i].name != NULL; i++) {
> +		report_prefix_push(tests[i].name);
> +		if (all || strcmp(argv[1], tests[i].name) == 0) {
> +			tests[i].func();
> +		}
> +		report_prefix_pop();
> +	}
> +
> +	report_prefix_pop();
> +
> +	return report_summary();
> +}
> 

Looks good to me!

-- 

Thanks,

David



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux