linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal guests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6e5acc94-4459-2385-331f-501d47106a20@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:31:22 +0100
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal
 guests

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@...hat.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@...uxfoundation.org>

  Thanks!

   Thomas