> On Oct 16, 2020, at 5:02 PM, Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> According to sections "Canonicalization and Consistency Checks" and "Event
> Injection" in APM vol 2
>
> VMRUN exits with VMEXIT_INVALID error code if either:
> - Reserved values of TYPE have been specified, or
> - TYPE = 3 (exception) has been specified with a vector that does not
> correspond to an exception (this includes vector 2, which is an NMI,
> not an exception).
>
> Existing tests already cover part of the second rule. This patch covers the
> the first rule and the missing pieces of the second rule.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> x86/svm_tests.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/x86/svm_tests.c b/x86/svm_tests.c
> index f78c9e4..e6554e4 100644
> --- a/x86/svm_tests.c
> +++ b/x86/svm_tests.c
> @@ -2132,6 +2132,45 @@ static void test_dr(void)
> vmcb->save.dr7 = dr_saved;
> }
>
> +static void test_event_inject(void)
> +{
> + u32 i;
> + u32 event_inj_saved = vmcb->control.event_inj;
> +
> + handle_exception(DE_VECTOR, my_isr);
> +
> + report (svm_vmrun() == SVM_EXIT_VMMCALL && count_exc == 0, "Test "
> + "No EVENTINJ");
> +
> + /*
> + * Reserved values for 'Type' in EVENTINJ causes VMEXIT_INVALID.
> + */
> + for (i = 1; i < 8; i++) {
> + if (i != 1 && i < 5)
> + continue;
> + vmcb->control.event_inj = DE_VECTOR |
> + i << SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_SHIFT | SVM_EVTINJ_VALID;
> + report(svm_vmrun() == SVM_EXIT_ERR && count_exc == 0,
> + "Test invalid TYPE (%x) in EVENTINJ", i);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Invalid vector number for event type 'exception' in EVENTINJ
> + * causes VMEXIT_INVALID.
> + */
> + i = 32;
> + while (i < 256) {
> + vmcb->control.event_inj = i | SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_EXEPT |
> + SVM_EVTINJ_VALID;
> + report(svm_vmrun() == SVM_EXIT_ERR && count_exc == 0,
> + "Test invalid vector (%u) in EVENTINJ for event type "
> + "\'exception\'", i);
> + i += 4;
> + }
I know that kvm-unit-tests has nothing to do with style, but can’t this loop
be turned into a for-loop for readability?
And why "i += 4" ?
