diff mbox series

selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal guests

Message ID 20220215074824.188440-1-thuth@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal guests | expand

Commit Message

Thomas Huth Feb. 15, 2022, 7:48 a.m. UTC
Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
these two memops.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

Comments

Claudio Imbrenda Feb. 15, 2022, 9:23 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:48:24 +0100
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:

> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
> these two memops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

looks rather straightforward

Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>  	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>  
> +	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
> +	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
> +	ksmo.flags = 0;
> +	ksmo.size = 8;
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
> +	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
> +	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
> +
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>  
>  	return 0;
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch Feb. 15, 2022, 9:54 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
> these two memops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>  	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
> 
> +	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
> +	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
> +	ksmo.flags = 0;
> +	ksmo.size = 8;
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
> +	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
> +	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;

What is the rational for that constant?
Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?

> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
> +
>  	kvm_vm_free(vm);
> 
>  	return 0;
Thomas Huth Feb. 15, 2022, 9:59 a.m. UTC | #3
On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
>> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
>> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
>> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
>> these two memops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>   	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>>   	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>>
>> +	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
>> +	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
>> +	ksmo.flags = 0;
>> +	ksmo.size = 8;
>> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
>> +	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
>> +	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
> 
> What is the rational for that constant?
> Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?

Right, it's rather a random value.

  Thomas
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch Feb. 15, 2022, 10:03 a.m. UTC | #4
On 2/15/22 10:59, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> On 2/15/22 08:48, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
>>> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
>>> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
>>> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
>>> these two memops.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>>> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>       run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>>>       vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>>>
>>> +    /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
>>> +    ksmo.gaddr = 0;
>>> +    ksmo.flags = 0;
>>> +    ksmo.size = 8;
>>> +    ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
>>> +    ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
>>> +    ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
>>
>> What is the rational for that constant?
>> Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?
> 
> Right, it's rather a random value.

Ah, ok.

Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> 
>  Thomas
>
Christian Borntraeger Feb. 15, 2022, 12:11 p.m. UTC | #5
Am 15.02.22 um 08:48 schrieb Thomas Huth:
> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
> these two memops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

Thanks, applied.
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>   	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>   	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>   
> +	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
> +	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
> +	ksmo.flags = 0;
> +	ksmo.size = 8;
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
> +	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
> +	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
> +
>   	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>   
>   	return 0;
Shuah Khan Feb. 15, 2022, 3:25 p.m. UTC | #6
On 2/15/22 12:48 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
> these two memops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>   	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>   	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>   
> +	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
> +	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
> +	ksmo.flags = 0;
> +	ksmo.size = 8;
> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
> +	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
> +	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");

Printing what passed would be a good addition to understand the tests that
get run and expected to pass.

> +	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
> +	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
> +		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
> +

Same here.

>   	kvm_vm_free(vm);
>   
>   	return 0;
> 

Something to consider in a follow-on patch and future changes to these tests.

Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

thanks,
-- Shuah
Thomas Huth Feb. 21, 2022, 9:31 a.m. UTC | #7
On 15/02/2022 16.25, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 2/15/22 12:48 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Commit 2c212e1baedc ("KVM: s390: Return error on SIDA memop on normal
>> guest") fixed the behavior of the SIDA memops for normal guests. It
>> would be nice to have a way to test whether the current kernel has
>> the fix applied or not. Thus add a check to the KVM selftests for
>> these two memops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
>> @@ -160,6 +160,21 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>       run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
>>       vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
>> +    /* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
>> +    ksmo.gaddr = 0;
>> +    ksmo.flags = 0;
>> +    ksmo.size = 8;
>> +    ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
>> +    ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
>> +    ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
>> +    rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
>> +    TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
>> +            "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");
> 
> Printing what passed would be a good addition to understand the tests that
> get run and expected to pass.

Yes, I agree ... I'll add that for a follow-up patch to my TODO list.

>> +    ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
>> +    rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
>> +    TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
>> +            "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
>> +
> 
> Same here.
> 
>>       kvm_vm_free(vm);
>>       return 0;
>>
> 
> Something to consider in a follow-on patch and future changes to these tests.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

  Thanks!

   Thomas
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
index 9f49ead380ab..d19c3ffdea3f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/memop.c
@@ -160,6 +160,21 @@  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 	run->psw_mask &= ~(3UL << (63 - 17));   /* Disable AR mode */
 	vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID);                  /* Run to sync new state */
 
+	/* Check that the SIDA calls are rejected for non-protected guests */
+	ksmo.gaddr = 0;
+	ksmo.flags = 0;
+	ksmo.size = 8;
+	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_READ;
+	ksmo.buf = (uintptr_t)mem1;
+	ksmo.sida_offset = 0x1c0;
+	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
+	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
+		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_READ in non-protected mode");
+	ksmo.op = KVM_S390_MEMOP_SIDA_WRITE;
+	rv = _vcpu_ioctl(vm, VCPU_ID, KVM_S390_MEM_OP, &ksmo);
+	TEST_ASSERT(rv == -1 && errno == EINVAL,
+		    "ioctl does not reject SIDA_WRITE in non-protected mode");
+
 	kvm_vm_free(vm);
 
 	return 0;