Message-ID: <42fc4cde-80a1-fee6-d16e-cba853489e7f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:09:30 +0800
From:   Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] selftests: KVM: aarch64: Introduce hypercall ABI
 test

Hi Raghavendra,

On 4/14/22 1:32 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:07 AM Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/22 9:16 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>>> Introduce a KVM selftest to check the hypercall interface
>>> for arm64 platforms. The test validates the user-space's
>>> IOCTL interface to read/write the psuedo-firmware registers
>>> as well as its effects on the guest upon certain configurations.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore        |   1 +
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   1 +
>>>    .../selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c        | 344 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>    3 files changed, 346 insertions(+)
>>>    create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
>>>
>>
>> To be more precise, s/IOCTL/{GET,SET}_ONE_REG ?
>>
> Sure, I think that'll be better.
> 
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
>>> index e82b816a6608..7ef52b3b1560 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/.gitignore
>>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>>    /aarch64/arch_timer
>>>    /aarch64/debug-exceptions
>>>    /aarch64/get-reg-list
>>> +/aarch64/hypercalls
>>>    /aarch64/psci_test
>>>    /aarch64/vgic_init
>>>    /aarch64/vgic_irq
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
>>> index 2f74f502de65..af4cb88bcf83 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
>>> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += system_counter_offset_test
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/arch_timer
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/debug-exceptions
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/get-reg-list
>>> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/hypercalls
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/psci_test
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_init
>>>    TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/vgic_irq
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..9941fb75772a
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/hypercalls.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>> +
>>> +/* hypercalls: Check the ARM64's psuedo-firmware bitmap register interface.
>>> + *
>>> + * The test validates the basic hypercall functionalities that are exposed
>>> + * via the psuedo-firmware bitmap register. This includes the registers'
>>> + * read/write behavior before and after the VM has started, and if the
>>> + * hypercalls are properly masked or unmasked to the guest when disabled or
>>> + * enabled from the KVM userspace, respectively.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include <errno.h>
>>> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>>> +#include <asm/kvm.h>
>>> +#include <kvm_util.h>
>>> +
>>> +#include "processor.h"
>>> +
>>> +#define FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(max_feat_bit) (GENMASK_ULL(max_feat_bit, 0))
>>> +
>>> +/* Last valid bits of the bitmapped firmware registers */
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX         0
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX     0
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX  1
>>> +
>>> +struct kvm_fw_reg_info {
>>> +     uint64_t reg;           /* Register definition */
>>> +     uint64_t max_feat_bit;  /* Bit that represents the upper limit of the feature-map */
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define FW_REG_INFO(r, bit_max)                      \
>>> +     {                                       \
>>> +             .reg = r,                       \
>>> +             .max_feat_bit = bit_max,        \
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +static const struct kvm_fw_reg_info fw_reg_info[] = {
>>> +     FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
>>> +     FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
>>> +     FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX),
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>> This can be simplifed by:
>>
>> #define FW_REG_INFO(r)                  \
>>          { .reg = r,                     \
>>            .max_feat_bit = r_##BIT_MAX,  \
>>          }
>>
>> static const struct kvm_fw_reg_info fw_reg_info[] = {
>>          FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP),
>>          FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP),
>>          FW_REG_INFO(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP),
>> };
>>
> Yes, probably that looks better. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
>>> +enum test_stage {
>>> +     TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE,
>>> +     TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED,
>>> +     TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED,
>>> +     TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO,
>>> +     TEST_STAGE_END,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int stage;
>>> +
>>
>> I think it'd better to initialize @stage to TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE.
>>
> Will do.
>>> +struct test_hvc_info {
>>> +     uint32_t func_id;
>>> +     int64_t arg0;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define TEST_HVC_INFO(f, a0) \
>>> +     {                       \
>>> +             .func_id = f,   \
>>> +             .arg0 = a0,     \
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>
>> According to those functions (smccc_get_{function, argx}()) defined
>> in include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h, @arg0 would have type of "uint64_t"
>> if I'm correct. Besides, @func_id is arg0 and arg0 should be arg1?
>> So if I'm correct, this would be:
>>
>> struct test_hvc_info {
>>          uint32_t func_id;
>>          uint64_t arg1
>> };
>>
> Thanks for noticing this! I'll change it to 'unit64'. Regarding the
> argument naming, I understand that it's a little confusing. I went
> with 'arg0' to align with the selftest library's convention. But, I
> agree that it's not aligned with what the kernel is used to.
> 
> Oliver, do you think we can start the argument naming from a1/arg1 in [1]?
> 
>>> +static const struct test_hvc_info hvc_info[] = {
>>> +     /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP */
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION, 0),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID, 0),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32, 0),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64, 0),
>>> +
>>> +     /* KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP */
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST, 0),
>>> +
>>> +     /* KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP */
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
>>> +                     ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID, KVM_PTP_VIRT_COUNTER),
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +/* Feed false hypercall info to test the KVM behavior */
>>> +static const struct test_hvc_info false_hvc_info[] = {
>>> +     /* Feature support check against a different family of hypercalls */
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
>>> +     TEST_HVC_INFO(ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES, ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64),
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static void guest_test_hvc(const struct test_hvc_info *hc_info)
>>> +{
>>> +     unsigned int i;
>>> +     struct arm_smccc_res res;
>>> +     unsigned int hvc_info_arr_sz;
>>> +
>>> +     hvc_info_arr_sz =
>>> +     hc_info == hvc_info ? ARRAY_SIZE(hvc_info) : ARRAY_SIZE(false_hvc_info);
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < hvc_info_arr_sz; i++, hc_info++) {
>>> +
>>> +             memset(&res, 0, sizeof(res));
>>> +             smccc_hvc(hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
>>> +
>>
>> Unnecessary empty line before memset(). I don't find where smccc_hvc()
>> is defined.
>>
> I can clear the line and for the definition of smccc_hvc(), I applied
> Oliver's patch [1].
> 
>>> +             switch (stage) {
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
>>> +                     GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED,
>>> +                                     res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0);
>>                                          ^^
>>
>> It seems the code here isn't properly aligned. Maybe it's your
>> preference :)
>>
> I think my editor is acting weird. I'll check again. Thanks for catching this!
> 
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
>>> +                     GUEST_ASSERT_3(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED,
>>> +                                     res.a0, hc_info->func_id, hc_info->arg0);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             default:
>>> +                     GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage);
>>> +             }
>>> +     }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void guest_code(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     while (stage != TEST_STAGE_END) {
>>> +             switch (stage) {
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE:
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
>>> +                     guest_test_hvc(hvc_info);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
>>> +                     guest_test_hvc(false_hvc_info);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             default:
>>> +                     GUEST_ASSERT_1(0, stage);
>>> +             }
>>> +
>>> +             GUEST_SYNC(stage);
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     GUEST_DONE();
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t val)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_one_reg reg = {
>>> +             .id = id,
>>> +             .addr = (uint64_t)&val,
>>> +     };
>>> +
>>> +     return _vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_ONE_REG, &reg);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t id, uint64_t *addr)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_one_reg reg = {
>>> +             .id = id,
>>> +             .addr = (uint64_t)addr,
>>> +     };
>>> +
>>> +     vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_GET_ONE_REG, &reg);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +struct st_time {
>>> +     uint32_t rev;
>>> +     uint32_t attr;
>>> +     uint64_t st_time;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define STEAL_TIME_SIZE              ((sizeof(struct st_time) + 63) & ~63)
>>> +#define ST_GPA_BASE          (1 << 30)
>>> +
>>> +static void steal_time_init(struct kvm_vm *vm)
>>> +{
>>> +     uint64_t st_ipa = (ulong)ST_GPA_BASE;
>>> +     unsigned int gpages;
>>> +     struct kvm_device_attr dev = {
>>> +             .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_CTRL,
>>> +             .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PVTIME_IPA,
>>> +             .addr = (uint64_t)&st_ipa,
>>> +     };
>>> +
>>> +     gpages = vm_calc_num_guest_pages(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, STEAL_TIME_SIZE);
>>> +     vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, ST_GPA_BASE, 1, gpages, 0);
>>> +
>>> +     vcpu_ioctl(vm, 0, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &dev);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> It might be helpful to do TEST_FAIL() on error returned from
>> this vcpu_ioctl(), or skip those PVTIME SMCCC calls accordingly
>> if the attribute isn't set successfully.
>>
> vcpu_ioctl() does a TEST_ASSERT() for us. Of course we can check it
> ourselves and skip if needed, but don't you think that may go
> unnoticed should any future changes tries to mess with
> steal_time_init() incorrectly and we'd end up skipping the test
> forever until we really notice skipped test?
> 

Yes, I missed the TEST_ASSERT() in vcpu_ioctl(). In this case,
we're safe and please ignore this comment :)

>>> +static void test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm)
>>> +{
>>> +     uint64_t val;
>>> +     unsigned int i;
>>> +     int ret;
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) {
>>> +             const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i];
>>> +
>>> +             /* First 'read' should be an upper limit of the features supported */
>>> +             get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(val == FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit),
>>> +                     "Expected all the features to be set for reg: 0x%lx; expected: 0x%llx; read: 0x%lx\n",
>>> +                     reg_info->reg, GENMASK_ULL(reg_info->max_feat_bit, 0), val);
>>> +
>>
>> s/GENMASK_ULL(...)/FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(...)
>>
> Right, that's better.
> 
>>> +             /* Test a 'write' by disabling all the features of the register map */
>>> +             ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, 0);
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
>>> +                     "Failed to clear all the features of reg: 0x%lx; ret: %d\n",
>>> +                     reg_info->reg, errno);
>>> +
>>> +             get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(val == 0,
>>> +                     "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n", reg_info->reg);
>>> +
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Test enabling a feature that's not supported.
>>> +              * Avoid this check if all the bits are occupied.
>>> +              */
>>> +             if (reg_info->max_feat_bit < 63) {
>>> +                     ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, BIT(reg_info->max_feat_bit + 1));
>>> +                     TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EINVAL,
>>> +                     "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting an unsupported feature for reg: 0x%lx\n",
>>> +                     errno, reg_info->reg);
>>> +             }
>>> +     }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(struct kvm_vm *vm)
>>> +{
>>> +     uint64_t val;
>>> +     unsigned int i;
>>> +     int ret;
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_info); i++) {
>>> +             const struct kvm_fw_reg_info *reg_info = &fw_reg_info[i];
>>> +
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Before starting the VM, the test clears all the bits.
>>> +              * Check if that's still the case.
>>> +              */
>>> +             get_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, &val);
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(val == 0,
>>> +                     "Expected all the features to be cleared for reg: 0x%lx\n",
>>> +                     reg_info->reg);
>>> +
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Test setting the last read value. KVM should allow this
>>> +              * even if VM has started running.
>>> +              */
>>> +             ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, val);
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
>>> +                     "Failed to set the register with previously read value after Vm start for reg: 0x%lx; ret: %d\n",
>>> +                     reg_info->reg, errno);
>>> +
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Set all the features for this register again. KVM shouldn't
>>> +              * allow this as the VM is running.
>>> +              */
>>> +             ret = set_fw_reg(vm, reg_info->reg, FW_REG_ULIMIT_VAL(reg_info->max_feat_bit));
>>> +             TEST_ASSERT(ret != 0 && errno == EBUSY,
>>> +             "Unexpected behavior or return value (%d) while setting a feature while VM is running for reg: 0x%lx\n",
>>> +             errno, reg_info->reg);
>>> +     }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_vm *vm;
>>> +
>>> +     vm = vm_create_default(0, 0, guest_code);
>>> +
>>> +     ucall_init(vm, NULL);
>>> +     steal_time_init(vm);
>>> +
>>> +     return vm;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct kvm_vm *test_guest_stage(struct kvm_vm *vm)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_vm *ret_vm = vm;
>>> +
>>> +     pr_debug("Stage: %d\n", stage);
>>> +
>>> +     switch (stage) {
>>> +     case TEST_STAGE_REG_IFACE:
>>> +             test_fw_regs_after_vm_start(vm);
>>> +             break;
>>> +     case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_DISABLED:
>>> +             /* Start a new VM so that all the features are now enabled by default */
>>> +             kvm_vm_free(vm);
>>> +             ret_vm = test_vm_create();
>>> +             break;
>>> +     case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FEAT_ENABLED:
>>> +     case TEST_STAGE_HVC_IFACE_FALSE_INFO:
>>> +             break;
>>> +     default:
>>> +             TEST_FAIL("Unknown test stage: %d\n", stage);
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     stage++;
>>> +     sync_global_to_guest(vm, stage);
>>> +
>>> +     return ret_vm;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void test_run(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_vm *vm;
>>> +     struct ucall uc;
>>> +     bool guest_done = false;
>>> +
>>> +     vm = test_vm_create();
>>> +
>>> +     test_fw_regs_before_vm_start(vm);
>>> +
>>> +     while (!guest_done) {
>>> +             vcpu_run(vm, 0);
>>> +
>>> +             switch (get_ucall(vm, 0, &uc)) {
>>> +             case UCALL_SYNC:
>>> +                     vm = test_guest_stage(vm);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             case UCALL_DONE:
>>> +                     guest_done = true;
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             case UCALL_ABORT:
>>> +                     TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld\n\tvalues: 0x%lx, 0x%lx; 0x%lx, stage: %u",
>>> +                     (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__, uc.args[1],
>>> +                     uc.args[2], uc.args[3], uc.args[4], stage);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             default:
>>> +                     TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit\n");
>>> +             }
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     kvm_vm_free(vm);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int main(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     setbuf(stdout, NULL);
>>> +
>>> +     test_run();
>>> +     return 0;
>>> +}
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to review.
> 

No worries and sorry for late chime-in.> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20220409184549.1681189-11-oupton@google.com/T/#u
> 

Thanks,
Gavin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists