On Mi 06-04-22 01:22:55, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The shortlog and changelog are all messed up. Ditto for the other patches in this > series. I am really sorry about that. I had sent another mail with the same patch version with subject line corrected. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20220318104646.8313-1-vkarasulli@xxxxxxx/T/#t > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, Vasant Karasulli wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Vasant Karasulli <vkarasulli@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/tests/Makefile | 2 + > > arch/x86/tests/sev-test-vc.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 116 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 arch/x86/tests/sev-test-vc.c > > ... > > > +int sev_es_test_vc_init(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (!cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_STATE_ENCRYPT)) { > > + kunit_info(test, "Not a SEV-ES guest. Skipping."); > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + memset(&hv_call_krp, 0, sizeof(hv_call_krp)); > > + hv_call_krp.entry_handler = hv_call_krp_entry; > > + hv_call_krp.handler = hv_call_krp_ret; > > + hv_call_krp.maxactive = 100; > > + hv_call_krp.data_size = sizeof(unsigned long); > > + hv_call_krp.kp.symbol_name = "sev_es_ghcb_hv_call"; > > + hv_call_krp.kp.addr = 0; > > + > > + ret = register_kretprobe(&hv_call_krp); > > + if (ret) { > > + kunit_info(test, "Could not register kretprobe. Skipping."); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + test->priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(u64), GFP_KERNEL); > > Allocating 8 bytes and storing the pointer an 8-byte field is rather pointless :-) Yes, I will remove this in the next version. > > > + if (!test->priv) { > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + kunit_info(test, "Could not allocate. Skipping."); > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > +out: > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +void sev_es_test_vc_exit(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + if (test->priv) > > + kunit_kfree(test, test->priv); > > + > > + if (hv_call_krp.kp.addr) > > + unregister_kretprobe(&hv_call_krp); > > +} > > + > > +#define check_op(kt, ec, op) \ > > +do { \ > > + struct kunit *t = (struct kunit *) kt; \ > > + op; \ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(t, (typeof(ec)) ec, \ > > + *((typeof(ec) *)(t->priv))); \ > > +} while (0) > > + > > +static void sev_es_nae_cpuid(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + unsigned int cpuid_fn = 0x8000001f; > > + > > + check_op(test, SVM_EXIT_CPUID, native_cpuid_eax(cpuid_fn)); > > Are there plans to go beyond basic checks? Neat idea, but it seems like it will > be prone to bitrot since it requires a somewhat esoteric setup and an opt-in config. > And odds are very good that if the kernel can make it this far as an SEV-ES guest, > it's gotten the basics right. I will definitely think about adding more checks and performing these checks early enough in the guest run. Thanks for your feedback. Thanks, Vasant Karasulli Kernel generalist www.suse.com<http://www.suse.com> [https://www.suse.com/assets/img/social-platforms-suse-logo.png]<http://www.suse.com/> SUSE - Open Source Solutions for Enterprise Servers & Cloud<http://www.suse.com/> Modernize your infrastructure with SUSE Linux Enterprise servers, cloud technology for IaaS, and SUSE's software-defined storage. www.suse.com
