[RFC,4/4] KVM: selftests: Add the sync_regs test for s390x
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190516111253.4494-5-thuth@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • KVM selftests for s390x
Related show

Commit Message

Thomas Huth May 16, 2019, 11:12 a.m. UTC
The test is an adaption of the same test for x86. Note that there
are some differences in the way how s390x deals with the kvm_valid_regs
in struct kvm_run, so some of the tests had to be removed. Also this
test is not using the ucall() interface on s390x yet (which would need
some work to be usable on s390x), so it simply drops out of the VM with
a diag 0x501 breakpoint instead.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   2 +
 .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c      | 151 ++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 154 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c

Comments

Paolo Bonzini May 20, 2019, 11:19 a.m. UTC | #1
On 16/05/19 13:12, Thomas Huth wrote:
> +#define VCPU_ID 5
> +
> +static void guest_code(void)
> +{
> +	for (;;) {
> +		asm volatile ("diag 0,0,0x501");
> +		asm volatile ("ahi 11,1");
> +	}

I'd like this to use something like

	register u32 stage = 0 asm("11");
	...
	stage++

instead (yes, it should be fixed in x86 too).

Paolo
Andrew Jones May 23, 2019, 10:56 a.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 01:12:53PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> The test is an adaption of the same test for x86. Note that there
> are some differences in the way how s390x deals with the kvm_valid_regs
> in struct kvm_run, so some of the tests had to be removed. Also this
> test is not using the ucall() interface on s390x yet (which would need
> some work to be usable on s390x), so it simply drops out of the VM with
> a diag 0x501 breakpoint instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   2 +
>  .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c      | 151 ++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 154 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 514d1f88ee26..68f76ee9e821 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -8645,6 +8645,7 @@ F:	arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h
>  F:	arch/s390/include/asm/kvm*
>  F:	arch/s390/kvm/
>  F:	arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
> +F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/
>  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/s390x/

Do we need these lines added? We have tools/testing/selftests/kvm/ in the
common KVM section already. If we do want to specify them specifically,
then I guess we need x86 and arm MAINTAINERS updates as well.

Thanks,
drew
Thomas Huth May 23, 2019, 11:19 a.m. UTC | #3
On 23/05/2019 12.56, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 01:12:53PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The test is an adaption of the same test for x86. Note that there
>> are some differences in the way how s390x deals with the kvm_valid_regs
>> in struct kvm_run, so some of the tests had to be removed. Also this
>> test is not using the ucall() interface on s390x yet (which would need
>> some work to be usable on s390x), so it simply drops out of the VM with
>> a diag 0x501 breakpoint instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   2 +
>>  .../selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c      | 151 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 154 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 514d1f88ee26..68f76ee9e821 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -8645,6 +8645,7 @@ F:	arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h
>>  F:	arch/s390/include/asm/kvm*
>>  F:	arch/s390/kvm/
>>  F:	arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
>> +F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/
>>  F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/s390x/
> 
> Do we need these lines added? We have tools/testing/selftests/kvm/ in the
> common KVM section already. If we do want to specify them specifically,
> then I guess we need x86 and arm MAINTAINERS updates as well.

I think they are helpful in the sense that the s390x maintainers get
CC:-ed on related patches as well, and if I've got Christian right, he's
interested in getting informed here. For Arm related patches, I guess
you should ask the Arm maintainers first. For x86, it does not really
matter, since the maintainers are the same.

 Thomas

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 514d1f88ee26..68f76ee9e821 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -8645,6 +8645,7 @@  F:	arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h
 F:	arch/s390/include/asm/kvm*
 F:	arch/s390/kvm/
 F:	arch/s390/mm/gmap.c
+F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/
 F:	tools/testing/selftests/kvm/*/s390x/
 
 KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR X86 (KVM/x86)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
index 690422c78fb2..128b3551dfd0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@  TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += clear_dirty_log_test
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += dirty_log_test
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += clear_dirty_log_test
 
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += s390x/sync_regs_test
+
 TEST_GEN_PROGS += $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_$(UNAME_M))
 LIBKVM += $(LIBKVM_$(UNAME_M))
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..e85ff0d69548
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/sync_regs_test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Test for s390x KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS
+ *
+ * Based on the same test for x86:
+ * Copyright (C) 2018, Google LLC.
+ *
+ * Adaptions for s390x:
+ * Copyright (C) 2019, Red Hat, Inc.
+ *
+ * Test expected behavior of the KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS functionality.
+ */
+
+#define _GNU_SOURCE /* for program_invocation_short_name */
+#include <fcntl.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <sys/ioctl.h>
+
+#include "test_util.h"
+#include "kvm_util.h"
+
+#define VCPU_ID 5
+
+static void guest_code(void)
+{
+	for (;;) {
+		asm volatile ("diag 0,0,0x501");
+		asm volatile ("ahi 11,1");
+	}
+}
+
+#define REG_COMPARE(reg) \
+	TEST_ASSERT(left->reg == right->reg, \
+		    "Register " #reg \
+		    " values did not match: 0x%llx, 0x%llx\n", \
+		    left->reg, right->reg)
+
+static void compare_regs(struct kvm_regs *left, struct kvm_sync_regs *right)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
+		REG_COMPARE(gprs[i]);
+}
+
+static void compare_sregs(struct kvm_sregs *left, struct kvm_sync_regs *right)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
+		REG_COMPARE(acrs[i]);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
+		REG_COMPARE(crs[i]);
+}
+
+#undef REG_COMPARE
+
+#define TEST_SYNC_FIELDS   (KVM_SYNC_GPRS|KVM_SYNC_ACRS|KVM_SYNC_CRS)
+#define INVALID_SYNC_FIELD 0x80000000
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+	struct kvm_vm *vm;
+	struct kvm_run *run;
+	struct kvm_regs regs;
+	struct kvm_sregs sregs;
+	int rv, cap;
+
+	/* Tell stdout not to buffer its content */
+	setbuf(stdout, NULL);
+
+	cap = kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS);
+	if (!cap) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "CAP_SYNC_REGS not supported, skipping test\n");
+		exit(KSFT_SKIP);
+	}
+
+	/* Create VM */
+	vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, 0, guest_code);
+
+	run = vcpu_state(vm, VCPU_ID);
+
+	/* Request and verify all valid register sets. */
+	run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
+	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
+	TEST_ASSERT(rv == 0, "vcpu_run failed: %d\n", rv);
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_S390_SIEIC,
+		    "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s)\n",
+		    run->exit_reason,
+		    exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason));
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->s390_sieic.icptcode == 4 &&
+		    (run->s390_sieic.ipa >> 8) == 0x83 &&
+		    (run->s390_sieic.ipb >> 16) == 0x501,
+		    "Unexpected interception code: ic=%u, ipa=0x%x, ipb=0x%x\n",
+		    run->s390_sieic.icptcode, run->s390_sieic.ipa,
+		    run->s390_sieic.ipb);
+
+	vcpu_regs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &regs);
+	compare_regs(&regs, &run->s.regs);
+
+	vcpu_sregs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &sregs);
+	compare_sregs(&sregs, &run->s.regs);
+
+	/* Set and verify various register values */
+	run->s.regs.gprs[11] = 0xBAD1DEA;
+	run->s.regs.acrs[0] = 1 << 11;
+
+	run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
+	run->kvm_dirty_regs = KVM_SYNC_GPRS | KVM_SYNC_ACRS;
+	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
+	TEST_ASSERT(rv == 0, "vcpu_run failed: %d\n", rv);
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_S390_SIEIC,
+		    "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s)\n",
+		    run->exit_reason,
+		    exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason));
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->s.regs.gprs[11] == 0xBAD1DEA + 1,
+		    "r11 sync regs value incorrect 0x%llx.",
+		    run->s.regs.gprs[11]);
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->s.regs.acrs[0]  == 1 << 11,
+		    "acr0 sync regs value incorrect 0x%llx.",
+		    run->s.regs.acrs[0]);
+
+	vcpu_regs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &regs);
+	compare_regs(&regs, &run->s.regs);
+
+	vcpu_sregs_get(vm, VCPU_ID, &sregs);
+	compare_sregs(&sregs, &run->s.regs);
+
+	/* Clear kvm_dirty_regs bits, verify new s.regs values are
+	 * overwritten with existing guest values.
+	 */
+	run->kvm_valid_regs = TEST_SYNC_FIELDS;
+	run->kvm_dirty_regs = 0;
+	run->s.regs.gprs[11] = 0xDEADBEEF;
+	rv = _vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);
+	TEST_ASSERT(rv == 0, "vcpu_run failed: %d\n", rv);
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_S390_SIEIC,
+		    "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s)\n",
+		    run->exit_reason,
+		    exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason));
+	TEST_ASSERT(run->s.regs.gprs[11] != 0xDEADBEEF,
+		    "r11 sync regs value incorrect 0x%llx.",
+		    run->s.regs.gprs[11]);
+
+	kvm_vm_free(vm);
+
+	return 0;
+}