On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 4:06 PM Pratik R. Sampat <pratikrajesh.sampat@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Introduce testing of SNP ioctl calls. This patch includes both positive > and negative tests of various parameters such as flags, page types and > policies. > > Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat <pratikrajesh.sampat@xxxxxxx> Tested-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c > index 500c67b3793b..1d5c275c11b3 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c > @@ -186,13 +186,130 @@ static void test_sev_launch(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > kvm_vm_free(vm); > } > > +static int spawn_snp_launch_start(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy, uint8_t flags) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + int ret; > + > + vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu); > + ret = snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, flags); > + kvm_vm_free(vm); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static void test_snp_launch_start(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > +{ > + uint8_t i; > + int ret; > + > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, policy, 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(!ret, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should not fail, invalid flag."); > + > + for (i = 1; i < 8; i++) { > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, policy, BIT(i)); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid flag."); > + } To save readers sometime do we want to comment that flags must be zero? > + > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, 0, 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy."); > + > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_SMT, 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy."); > + > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO, 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy."); Ditto on SMT comment, this could pass if SMT was disabled right? > + > + ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO | > + (255 * SNP_POLICY_ABI_MAJOR) | > + (255 * SNP_POLICY_ABI_MINOR), 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EIO, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid version."); > +} > + > +static void test_snp_launch_update(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + int ret; > + > + for (int pgtype = 0; pgtype <= KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID; pgtype++) { Do we want to test KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID+1 to make sure that fails? > + vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu); > + snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0); > + ret = snp_vm_launch_update(vm, pgtype); > + > + switch (pgtype) { > + case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL: > + case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_ZERO: > + case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_UNMEASURED: > + case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_SECRETS: > + TEST_ASSERT(!ret, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should not fail, invalid Page type."); Double negative maybe: "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should succeed..." > + break; > + case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID: > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EIO, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid Page type."); This is a valid page type right? But I think the error is from the ASP due to the page being malformed for a CPUID page. > + break; > + default: > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid Page type."); > + } > + > + kvm_vm_free(vm); > + } > +} > + > +void test_snp_launch_finish(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + int ret; > + > + vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu); > + snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0); > + snp_vm_launch_update(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL); > + ret = snp_vm_launch_finish(vm, 0); > + TEST_ASSERT(!ret, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should not fail, invalid flag."); Comment is wrong, maybe: "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should not fail." > + kvm_vm_free(vm); > + > + for (int i = 1; i < 16; i++) { > + vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu); > + snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0); > + snp_vm_launch_update(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL); > + ret = snp_vm_launch_finish(vm, BIT(i)); > + TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, > + "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should fail, invalid flag."); > + kvm_vm_free(vm); To save readers sometime do we want to comment that flags must be zero? > + } > +} > + > +static void test_sev_ioctl(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > +{ > + if (type == KVM_X86_SNP_VM) { > + test_snp_launch_start(type, policy); > + test_snp_launch_update(type, policy); > + test_snp_launch_finish(type, policy); > + > + return; > + } > + > + test_sev_launch(guest_code, type, policy); > +} > + > static void test_sev(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) > { > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > struct kvm_vm *vm; > struct ucall uc; > > - test_sev_launch(guest_code, type, policy); > + test_sev_ioctl(guest_code, type, policy); > > vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, guest_code, &vcpu); > > -- > 2.34.1 >