Hi Tom On 7/11/2024 1:34 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 7/10/24 17:05, Pratik R. Sampat wrote: >> Introduce tests for sev and sev-es ioctl that exercises the boot path >> of launch, update and finish on an invalid policy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat <pratikrajesh.sampat@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+) >> >> 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 1a50a280173c..500c67b3793b 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c >> @@ -131,12 +131,69 @@ static void test_sync_vmsa(uint32_t type, uint32_t policy) >> kvm_vm_free(vm); >> } >> >> +static void sev_guest_status_assert(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t type) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_sev_guest_status status; >> + bool cond; >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = __vm_sev_ioctl(vm, KVM_SEV_GUEST_STATUS, &status); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "KVM_SEV_GUEST_STATUS should fail, invalid VM Type."); >> +} >> + >> +static void test_sev_launch(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) >> +{ >> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; >> + struct kvm_vm *vm; >> + struct ucall uc; >> + bool cond; >> + int ret; >> + > > Maybe a block comment here indicating what you're actually doing would > be good, because I'm a bit confused. > > A policy value of 0 is valid for SEV, so you expect each call to > succeed, right? And, actually, for SEV-ES the launch start will succeed, > too, but the launch update will fail because LAUNCH_UPDATE_VMSA is not > valid for SEV, but then the launch measure should succeed. Is that > right? What about the other calls? > Sure, I can do that. Yes for SEV, the policy value of 0 succeeds for everything except when we try to run and we see a KVM_EXIT_IO. For SEV-ES, with the policy value of 0 - we don't see launch_start succeed. It fails with EIO in this case. Post that all the calls for SEV-ES also fail subsequent to that. I guess the core idea behind this test is to ensure that once the first bad case of launch_start fails, we should see a cascading list of failures. Thank you! Pratik > Thanks, > Tom > >> + vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, guest_code, &vcpu); >> + ret = sev_vm_launch_start(vm, 0); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy."); >> + >> + ret = sev_vm_launch_update(vm, policy); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid policy."); >> + sev_guest_status_assert(vm, type); >> + >> + ret = sev_vm_launch_measure(vm, alloca(256)); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_MEASURE should fail, invalid policy."); >> + sev_guest_status_assert(vm, type); >> + >> + ret = sev_vm_launch_finish(vm); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_FINISH should fail, invalid policy."); >> + sev_guest_status_assert(vm, type); >> + >> + vcpu_run(vcpu); >> + get_ucall(vcpu, &uc); >> + cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? >> + vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO : >> + vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_FAIL_ENTRY; >> + TEST_ASSERT(cond, >> + "vcpu_run should fail, invalid policy."); >> + >> + kvm_vm_free(vm); >> +} >> + >> 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); >> + >> vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, guest_code, &vcpu); >> >> /* TODO: Validate the measurement is as expected. */