On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 09:58:54AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Try to fetch any supported featured msr. Currently it won't fail, so at least > > we can check against valid ones (which should be >0). > > > > This reproduces [1] too by trying to fetch one invalid msr there. > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209845 > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 3 + > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 14 +++++ > > .../testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/state_test.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 75 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > index 919e161dd289..e34cf263b20a 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h > > @@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ int vm_enable_cap(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct kvm_enable_cap *cap); > > > > struct kvm_vm *vm_create(enum vm_guest_mode mode, uint64_t phy_pages, int perm); > > struct kvm_vm *_vm_create(enum vm_guest_mode mode, uint64_t phy_pages, int perm); > > +void kvm_vm_get_msr_feature_index_list(struct kvm_vm *vm, > > + struct kvm_msr_list *list); > > +int kvm_vm_get_feature_msrs(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct kvm_msrs *msrs); > > void kvm_vm_free(struct kvm_vm *vmp); > > void kvm_vm_restart(struct kvm_vm *vmp, int perm); > > void kvm_vm_release(struct kvm_vm *vmp); > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c > > index 74776ee228f2..3c16fa044335 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c > > @@ -132,6 +132,20 @@ static const struct vm_guest_mode_params vm_guest_mode_params[] = { > > _Static_assert(sizeof(vm_guest_mode_params)/sizeof(struct vm_guest_mode_params) == NUM_VM_MODES, > > "Missing new mode params?"); > > > > +void kvm_vm_get_msr_feature_index_list(struct kvm_vm *vm, > > + struct kvm_msr_list *list) > > +{ > > + int r = ioctl(vm->kvm_fd, KVM_GET_MSR_FEATURE_INDEX_LIST, list); > > + > > + TEST_ASSERT(r == 0, "KVM_GET_MSR_FEATURE_INDEX_LIST failed: %d\n", > > + -errno); > > +} > > + > > +int kvm_vm_get_feature_msrs(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct kvm_msrs *msrs) > > +{ > > + return ioctl(vm->kvm_fd, KVM_GET_MSRS, msrs); > > +} > > I *think* that the non-written rule for kvm selftests is that functions > without '_' prefix check ioctl return value with TEST_ASSERT() and > functions with it don't (e.g. _vcpu_run()/vcpu_run()) but maybe it's > just me. Sure, will fix it up. > > > + > > /* > > * VM Create > > * > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/state_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/state_test.c > > index f6c8b9042f8a..7ce9920e526a 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/state_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/state_test.c > > I would not overload state_test with this new check and create a new > one. The benefit is that when one of these tests fail we still get the > result of the other one so it's not 'everything works' vs 'everything is > broken' type of log. IMHO it's not extremely important on knowingg which binary failed - afaiu, kernel selftests are really for an "all pass", so if anything fails, we dig. Another thing, state_test.c has a comment (at the top): /* * KVM_GET/SET_* tests * * Copyright (C) 2018, Red Hat, Inc. ... Shouldn't KVM_GET_MSRS suites here? :) Thanks, -- Peter Xu
