On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 19:33 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 10:38 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Add a sanity check in get_cpuid_entry() to provide a friendlier error than
> > > a segfault when a test developer tries to use a vCPU CPUID helper on a
> > > barebones vCPU.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c
> > > index c664e446136b..f0f3434d767e 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/processor.c
> > > @@ -1141,6 +1141,8 @@ const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *get_cpuid_entry(const struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > + TEST_ASSERT(cpuid, "Must do vcpu_init_cpuid() first (or equivalent)");
> > > +
> > > for (i = 0; i < cpuid->nent; i++) {
> > > if (cpuid->entries[i].function == function &&
> > > cpuid->entries[i].index == index)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maybe it is better to do this assert in __vcpu_get_cpuid_entry() because the
> > assert might confuse the reader, since it just tests for NULL but when it
> > fails, it complains that you need to call some function.
>
> IIRC, I originally added the assert in __vcpu_get_cpuid_entry(), but I didn't
> like leaving get_cpuid_entry() unprotected. What if I add an assert in both?
> E.g. have __vcpu_get_cpuid_entry() assert with the (hopefully) hepful message,
> and have get_cpuid_entry() do a simple TEST_ASSERT_NE()?
>
This looks like a great idea.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
