On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 05:30:06PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11 2023, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add tests to verify setting ID registers from userspace is handled
> > correctly by KVM. Also add a test case to use ioctl
> > KVM_ARM_GET_REG_WRITABLE_MASKS to get writable masks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> > .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c | 479 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 480 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
>
> (...)
>
> > +static void test_user_set_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only)
> > +{
> > + uint64_t masks[KVM_ARM_FEATURE_ID_RANGE_SIZE];
> > + struct reg_mask_range range = {
> > + .addr = (__u64)masks,
> > + };
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* KVM should return error when reserved field is not zero */
> > + range.reserved[0] = 1;
> > + ret = __vm_ioctl(vcpu->vm, KVM_ARM_GET_REG_WRITABLE_MASKS, &range);
> > + TEST_ASSERT(ret, "KVM doesn't check invalid parameters.");
>
> I think the code should first check for
> KVM_CAP_ARM_SUPPORTED_REG_MASK_RANGES -- newer kselftests are supposed
> to be able to run on older kernels, and we should just skip all of this
> if the API isn't there.
Ah, thanks! I'll apply the following on top:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
index 5c0718fd1705..bac05210b539 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
@@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ int main(void)
uint64_t val, el0;
int ftr_cnt;
+ TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_SUPPORTED_REG_MASK_RANGES));
+
vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
/* Check for AARCH64 only system */
--
Thanks,
Oliver
