Add a PUNCH_HOLE testcase to the private memory conversions test that
verifies PUNCH_HOLE actually frees memory. Directly verifying that KVM
frees memory is impractical, if it's even possible, so instead indirectly
verify memory is freed by asserting that the guest reads zeroes after a
PUNCH_HOLE. E.g. if KVM zaps SPTEs but doesn't actually punch a hole in
the inode, the subsequent read will still see the previous value. And
obviously punching a hole shouldn't cause explosions.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
index b80cf7342d0d..c04e7d61a585 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
@@ -212,6 +212,60 @@ static void guest_test_explicit_conversion(uint64_t base_gpa, bool do_fallocate)
}
}
+static void guest_punch_hole(uint64_t gpa, uint64_t size)
+{
+ /* "Mapping" memory shared via fallocate() is done via PUNCH_HOLE. */
+ uint64_t flags = MAP_GPA_SHARED | MAP_GPA_DO_FALLOCATE;
+
+ kvm_hypercall_map_gpa_range(gpa, size, flags);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Test that PUNCH_HOLE actually frees memory by punching holes without doing a
+ * proper conversion. Freeing (PUNCH_HOLE) should zap SPTEs, and reallocating
+ * (subsequent fault) should zero memory.
+ */
+static void guest_test_punch_hole(uint64_t base_gpa, bool precise)
+{
+ const uint8_t init_p = 0xcc;
+ int i;
+
+ /*
+ * Convert the entire range to private, this testcase is all about
+ * punching holes in guest_memfd, i.e. shared mappings aren't needed.
+ */
+ guest_map_private(base_gpa, PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE, false);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_ranges); i++) {
+ uint64_t gpa = base_gpa + test_ranges[i].offset;
+ uint64_t size = test_ranges[i].size;
+
+ /*
+ * Free all memory before each iteration, even for the !precise
+ * case where the memory will be faulted back in. Freeing and
+ * reallocating should obviously work, and freeing all memory
+ * minimizes the probability of cross-testcase influence.
+ */
+ guest_punch_hole(base_gpa, PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE);
+
+ /* Fault-in and initialize memory, and verify the pattern. */
+ if (precise) {
+ memset((void *)gpa, init_p, size);
+ memcmp_g(gpa, init_p, size);
+ } else {
+ memset((void *)base_gpa, init_p, PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE);
+ memcmp_g(base_gpa, init_p, PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Punch a hole at the target range and verify that reads from
+ * the guest succeed and return zeroes.
+ */
+ guest_punch_hole(gpa, size);
+ memcmp_g(gpa, 0, size);
+ }
+}
+
static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
{
/*
@@ -220,6 +274,13 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
*/
guest_test_explicit_conversion(base_gpa, false);
guest_test_explicit_conversion(base_gpa, true);
+
+ /*
+ * Run the PUNCH_HOLE test twice too, once with the entire guest_memfd
+ * faulted in, once with only the target range faulted in.
+ */
+ guest_test_punch_hole(base_gpa, false);
+ guest_test_punch_hole(base_gpa, true);
GUEST_DONE();
}
--
2.42.0.515.g380fc7ccd1-goog
