Hi Raghavendra,
On 4/14/22 1:32 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:07 AM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/7/22 9:16 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
Introduce a KVM selftest to check the hypercall interface
for arm64 platforms. The test validates the user-space's
IOCTL interface to read/write the psuedo-firmware registers
as well as its effects on the guest upon certain configurations.
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
.../selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c | 344 ++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 346 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
To be more precise, s/IOCTL/{GET,SET}_ONE_REG ?
Sure, I think that'll be better.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
index e82b816a6608..7ef52b3b1560 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
/aarch64/arch_timer
/aarch64/debug-exceptions
/aarch64/get-reg-list
+/aarch64/hypercalls
/aarch64/psci_test
/aarch64/vgic_init
/aarch64/vgic_irq
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
index 2f74f502de65..af4cb88bcf83 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
@@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += system_counter_offset_test
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/psci_test
TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init
TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_irq
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9941fb75772a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+
+/* hypercalls: Check the ARM64's psuedo-firmware bitmap register interface.
+ *
+ * The test validates the basic hypercall functionalities that are exposed
+ * via the psuedo-firmware bitmap register. This includes the registers'
+ * read/write behavior before and after the VM has started, and if the
+ * hypercalls are properly masked or unmasked to the guest when disabled or
+ * enabled from the KVM userspace, respectively.
+ */
+
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
+#include <asm/kvm.h>
+#include <kvm_util.h>
+
+#include "processor.h"
+
+#define FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(max_feat_bit) (GENMASK_ULL(max_feat_bit, 0))
+
+/* Last valid bits of the bitmapped firmware registers */
+#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0
+#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0
+#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 1
+
+struct kvm_fw_reg_info {
+ uint64_t reg; /* Register definition */
+ uint64_t max_feat_bit; /* Bit that represents the upper limit of the feature-map */
+};
+
+#define FW_REG_INFO(r, bit_max) \
+ { \
+ .reg = r, \
+ .max_feat_bit = bit_max, \
+ }
+
+static const struct kvm_fw_reg_info fw_reg_info[] = {
+ FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
+ FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
+ FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
+};
+
This can be simplifed by:
#define FW_REG_INFO(r) \
{ .reg = r, \
.max_feat_bit = r_##BIT_MAX, \
}
static const struct kvm_fw_reg_info fw_reg_info[] = {
FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP),
FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP),
FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP),
};
Yes, probably that looks better. Thanks for the suggestion.
+enum test_stage {
+ TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE,
+ TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED,
+ TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED,
+ TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO,
+ TEST_STAGE_END,
+};
+
+static int stage;
+
I think it'd better to initialize @stage to TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE.
Will do.
+struct test_hvc_info {
+ uint32_t func_id;
+ int64_t arg0;
+};
+
+#define TEST_HVC_INFO(f, a0) \
+ { \
+ .func_id = f, \
+ .arg0 = a0, \
+ }
+
According to those functions (smccc_get_{function, argx}()) defined
in include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h, @arg0 would have type of "uint64_t"
if I'm correct. Besides, @func_id is arg0 and arg0 should be arg1?
So if I'm correct, this would be:
struct test_hvc_info {
uint32_t func_id;
uint64_t arg1
};
Thanks for noticing this! I'll change it to 'unit64'. Regarding the
argument naming, I understand that it's a little confusing. I went
with 'arg0' to align with the selftest library's convention. But, I
agree that it's not aligned with what the kernel is used to.
Oliver, do you think we can start the argument naming from a1/arg1 in [1]?
+static const struct test_hvc_info hvc_info[] = {
+ /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP */
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION, 0),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID, 0),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32, 0),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64, 0),
+
+ /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP */
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST, 0),
+
+ /* KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP */
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
+ ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID, KVM_PTP_VIRT_COUNTER),
+};
+
+/* Feed false hypercall info to test the KVM behavior */
+static const struct test_hvc_info false_hvc_info[] = {
+ /* Feature support check against a different family of hypercalls */
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
+ TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
+};
+
+static void guest_test_hvc(const struct test_hvc_info *hc_info)
+{
+ unsigned int i;
+ struct arm_smccc_res res;
+ unsigned int hvc_info_arr_sz;
+
+ hvc_info_arr_sz =
+ hc_info == hvc_info ? ARRAY_SIZE(hvc_info) : ARRAY_SIZE(false_hvc_info);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < hvc_info_arr_sz; i++, hc_info++) {
+
+ memset(&res, 0, sizeof(res));
+ smccc_hvc(hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
+
Unnecessary empty line before memset(). I don't find where smccc_hvc()
is defined.
I can clear the line and for the definition of smccc_hvc(), I applied
Oliver's patch [1].
+ switch (stage) {
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
+ GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED,
+ res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0);
^^
It seems the code here isn't properly aligned. Maybe it's your
preference :)
I think my editor is acting weird. I'll check again. Thanks for catching this!
+ break;
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
+ GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED,
+ res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0);
+ break;
+ default:
+ GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage);
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+static void guest_code(void)
+{
+ while (stage != TEST_STAGE_END) {
+ switch (stage) {
+ case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE:
+ break;
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
+ guest_test_hvc(hvc_info);
+ break;
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
+ guest_test_hvc(false_hvc_info);
+ break;
+ default:
+ GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage);
+ }
+
+ GUEST_SYNC(stage);
+ }
+
+ GUEST_DONE();
+}
+
+static int set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t val)
+{
+ struct kvm_one_reg reg = {
+ .id = id,
+ .addr = (uint64_t)&val,
+ };
+
+ return _vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, ®);
+}
+
+static void get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t *addr)
+{
+ struct kvm_one_reg reg = {
+ .id = id,
+ .addr = (uint64_t)addr,
+ };
+
+ vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, ®);
+}
+
+struct st_time {
+ uint32_t rev;
+ uint32_t attr;
+ uint64_t st_time;
+};
+
+#define STEAL_TIME_SIZE ((sizeof(struct st_time) + 63) & ~63)
+#define ST_GPA_BASE (1 << 30)
+
+static void steal_time_init(struct kvm_vm *vm)
+{
+ uint64_t st_ipa = (ulong)ST_GPA_BASE;
+ unsigned int gpages;
+ struct kvm_device_attr dev = {
+ .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL,
+ .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_IPA,
+ .addr = (uint64_t)&st_ipa,
+ };
+
+ gpages = vm_calc_num_guest_pages(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, STEAL_TIME_SIZE);
+ vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, ST_GPA_BASE, 1, gpages, 0);
+
+ vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &dev);
+}
+
It might be helpful to do TEST_FAIL() on error returned from
this vcpu_ioctl(), or skip those PVTIME SMCCC calls accordingly
if the attribute isn't set successfully.
vcpu_ioctl() does a TEST_ASSERT() for us. Of course we can check it
ourselves and skip if needed, but don't you think that may go
unnoticed should any future changes tries to mess with
steal_time_init() incorrectly and we'd end up skipping the test
forever until we really notice skipped test?
Yes, I missed the TEST_ASSERT() in vcpu_ioctl(). In this case,
we're safe and please ignore this comment :)
+static void test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm)
+{
+ uint64_t val;
+ unsigned int i;
+ int ret;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) {
+ const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i];
+
+ /* First 'read' should be an upper limit of the features supported */
+ get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
+ TEST_ASSERT(val == FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit),
+ "Expected all the features to be set for reg: 0x%lx; expected: 0x%llx; read: 0x%lx\n",
+ reg_info->reg, GENMASK_ULL(reg_info->max_feat_bit, 0), val);
+
s/GENMASK_ULL(...)/FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(...)
Right, that's better.
+ /* Test a 'write' by disabling all the features of the register map */
+ ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, 0);
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
+ "Failed to clear all the features of reg: 0x%lx; ret: %d\n",
+ reg_info->reg, errno);
+
+ get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
+ TEST_ASSERT(val == 0,
+ "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n", reg_info->reg);
+
+ /*
+ * Test enabling a feature that's not supported.
+ * Avoid this check if all the bits are occupied.
+ */
+ if (reg_info->max_feat_bit < 63) {
+ ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, BIT(reg_info->max_feat_bit + 1));
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EINVAL,
+ "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting an unsupported feature for reg: 0x%lx\n",
+ errno, reg_info->reg);
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+static void test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm)
+{
+ uint64_t val;
+ unsigned int i;
+ int ret;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) {
+ const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i];
+
+ /*
+ * Before starting the VM, the test clears all the bits.
+ * Check if that's still the case.
+ */
+ get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
+ TEST_ASSERT(val == 0,
+ "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n",
+ reg_info->reg);
+
+ /*
+ * Test setting the last read value. KVM should allow this
+ * even if VM has started running.
+ */
+ ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, val);
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
+ "Failed to set the register with previously read value after Vm start for reg: 0x%lx; ret: %d\n",
+ reg_info->reg, errno);
+
+ /*
+ * Set all the features for this register again. KVM shouldn't
+ * allow this as the VM is running.
+ */
+ ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit));
+ TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EBUSY,
+ "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting a feature while VM is running for reg: 0x%lx\n",
+ errno, reg_info->reg);
+ }
+}
+
+static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
+{
+ struct kvm_vm *vm;
+
+ vm = vm_create_default(0, 0, guest_code);
+
+ ucall_init(vm, NULL);
+ steal_time_init(vm);
+
+ return vm;
+}
+
+static struct kvm_vm *test_guest_stage(struct kvm_vm *vm)
+{
+ struct kvm_vm *ret_vm = vm;
+
+ pr_debug("Stage: %d\n", stage);
+
+ switch (stage) {
+ case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE:
+ test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(vm);
+ break;
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
+ /* Start a new VM so that all the features are now enabled by default */
+ kvm_vm_free(vm);
+ ret_vm = test_vm_create();
+ break;
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
+ case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
+ break;
+ default:
+ TEST_FAIL("Unknown test stage: %d\n", stage);
+ }
+
+ stage++;
+ sync_global_to_guest(vm, stage);
+
+ return ret_vm;
+}
+
+static void test_run(void)
+{
+ struct kvm_vm *vm;
+ struct ucall uc;
+ bool guest_done = false;
+
+ vm = test_vm_create();
+
+ test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(vm);
+
+ while (!guest_done) {
+ vcpu_run(vm, 0);
+
+ switch (get_ucall(vm, 0, &uc)) {
+ case UCALL_SYNC:
+ vm = test_guest_stage(vm);
+ break;
+ case UCALL_DONE:
+ guest_done = true;
+ break;
+ case UCALL_ABORT:
+ TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld\n\tvalues: 0x%lx, 0x%lx; 0x%lx, stage: %u",
+ (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__, uc.args[1],
+ uc.args[2], uc.args[3], uc.args[4], stage);
+ break;
+ default:
+ TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit\n");
+ }
+ }
+
+ kvm_vm_free(vm);
+}
+
+int main(void)
+{
+ setbuf(stdout, NULL);
+
+ test_run();
+ return 0;
+}
Thanks for taking the time to review.
No worries and sorry for late chime-in.>
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20220409184549.1681189-11-oupton@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Thanks,
Gavin
