Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the tprot test

Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:08:19 +0200

On 14/04/2022 13.51, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:53:21 +0200
Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of
the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user
whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or
not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include
some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 12 +++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
index c097b9db495e..a714b4206e95 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
  #include <sys/mman.h>
  #include "test_util.h"
  #include "kvm_util.h"
+#include "kselftest.h"
  
  #define PAGE_SHIFT 12
  #define PAGE_SIZE (1 << PAGE_SHIFT)
@@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ enum stage {
  	STAGE_INIT_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE,
  	TEST_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE,
  	TEST_STORAGE_PROT_OVERRIDE,
+	NUM_STAGES			/* this must be the last entry */
  };
  
  struct test {
@@ -196,6 +198,7 @@ static void guest_code(void)
  	}									\
  	ASSERT_EQ(uc.cmd, UCALL_SYNC);						\
  	ASSERT_EQ(uc.args[1], __stage);						\
+	ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n");					\
  })
  
  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
@@ -204,6 +207,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
  	struct kvm_run *run;
  	vm_vaddr_t guest_0_page;
  
+	ksft_print_header();
+	ksft_set_plan(NUM_STAGES - 1);	/* STAGE_END is not counted, thus - 1 */
+
  	vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, 0, guest_code);
  	run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
  
@@ -213,7 +219,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
  
  	guest_0_page = vm_vaddr_alloc(vm, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
  	if (guest_0_page != 0)
-		print_skip("Did not allocate page at 0 for fetch protection override tests");
+		ksft_print_msg("Did not allocate page at 0 for fetch protection override tests\n");

will this print a skip, though?

No, it's now only a message.

or you don't want to print a skip because then the numbering in the
planning doesn't match anymore?

Right.

in which case, is there an easy way to fix it?

Honestly, this part of the code is a little bit of a riddle to me - I wonder 
why this was using "print_skip()" at all, since the HOST_SYNC below is 
executed anyway... so this sounds rather like a warning message to me that 
says that the following test might not work as expected, instead of a real 
test-is-skipped message?

Janis, could you please clarify the intention here?

 Thomas

  	HOST_SYNC(vm, STAGE_INIT_FETCH_PROT_OVERRIDE);
  	if (guest_0_page == 0)
  		mprotect(addr_gva2hva(vm, (vm_vaddr_t)0), PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ);
@@ -224,4 +230,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
  	run->s.regs.crs[0] |= CR0_STORAGE_PROTECTION_OVERRIDE;
  	run->kvm_dirty_regs = KVM_SYNC_CRS;
  	HOST_SYNC(vm, TEST_STORAGE_PROT_OVERRIDE);
+
+	kvm_vm_free(vm);
+
+	ksft_finished();
  }








