[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdX0SRoBXReggrVA@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:40:57 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Nathan Tempelman <natet@...gle.com>,
Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] KVM: selftests: Add support for
test-selectable ucall implementations
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 05:43:21PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Because it uses multiple VMs, and my rough sketch only allows for a single VM to
> > use ucall. Though I suppose we could simply keep appending to the ucall list for
> > every VM. The requirement would then be that all VMs are of the same type, i.e.
> > utilize the same ucall_ops.
>
> Hmm, maybe I misread your patch. Not supporting multiple VMs was the
> reason I gave up on having the ucall structs allocated on-demand and
> went with requiring them to be passed as arguments to ucall().
>
> I thought with your patch you had solved that by having each vm have it's
> own pool, via vm->ucall_list, and then mapping each pool into each guest
> separately via:
>
> ucall_init(vm):
> ucall_list = vm->ucall_list
> sync_global_to_guest(ucall_list).
>
> then as long as that ucall_init() is done *after* the guest calls
> kvm_vm_elf_load(), it will end up with a 'ucall_list' global that points
> to it's own specific vm->ucall_list. Then on the test side it doesn't
> matter what the 'ucall_list' global is currently set to since you have
> the GPA and know what vm exited.
>
> Or am I missing something there?
Ha, that was not at all intented. But yes, it should work. I'd rather be lucky
than good?
> Although even if that is the case, now that we're proposing doing the
> ucall_init() inside vm_create(), then we run the risk of a test calling
> kvm_vm_elf_load() after, which might clobber the guest's copy of
> ucall_list global if ucall_init() had since been called for another VM.
> But that could maybe be worked around by having whatever vm_create()
> variant we use also do the kvm_vm_elf_load() unconditionally as part of
> creation.
Will sync_global_to_guest() even work as intended if kvm_vm_elf_load() hasn't
been called? If not, then sync_global_{to,from}_guest() should really assert if
the test hasn't been loaded.
As for ucall_init(), I think the best approach would be to make kvm_vm_elf_load()
a static and replace all calls with:
kvm_vm_load_guest(vm);
where its implementation is:
void kvm_vm_load_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm)
{
kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
ucall_init(vm);
}
The logic being that if a test creates a VM but never loads any code into the guest,
e.g. kvm_create_max_vcpus, then it _can't_ make ucalls.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists