Extended HOST_EFER tests can fail with a different error code than the
expected one, since the host address size bit is checked against
EFER.LMA. This causes kvm-unit-tests to fail on bare metal. According
to the SDM the errors are not ordered.
Expect either "invalid control" or "invalid host state" error-codes to
allow the tests to pass. The fix somewhat relaxes the tests, as there
are cases when only "invalid host state" is a valid instruction error,
but doing the fix in this manner prevents intrusive changes.
Fixes: a22d7b5534c2 ("x86: vmx_tests: extend HOST_EFER tests")
Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
x86/vmx_tests.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
index 69429e5..e69c361 100644
--- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
+++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
@@ -3407,6 +3407,27 @@ static void test_vmx_vmlaunch(u32 xerror)
}
}
+/*
+ * Try to launch the current VMCS, and expect one of two possible
+ * errors (or success) codes.
+ */
+static void test_vmx_vmlaunch2(u32 xerror1, u32 xerror2)
+{
+ bool success = vmlaunch_succeeds();
+ u32 vmx_inst_err;
+
+ if (!xerror1 == !xerror2)
+ report(success == !xerror1, "vmlaunch %s",
+ !xerror1 ? "succeeds" : "fails");
+
+ if (!success && (xerror1 || xerror2)) {
+ vmx_inst_err = vmcs_read(VMX_INST_ERROR);
+ report(vmx_inst_err == xerror1 || vmx_inst_err == xerror2,
+ "VMX inst error is %d or %d (actual %d)", xerror1,
+ xerror2, vmx_inst_err);
+ }
+}
+
static void test_vmx_invalid_controls(void)
{
test_vmx_vmlaunch(VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
@@ -6764,7 +6785,8 @@ static void test_efer_vmlaunch(u32 fld, bool ok)
if (ok)
test_vmx_vmlaunch(0);
else
- test_vmx_vmlaunch(VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_HOST_STATE_FIELD);
+ test_vmx_vmlaunch2(VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD,
+ VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_HOST_STATE_FIELD);
} else {
if (ok) {
enter_guest();
--
2.20.1
