| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK9=C2WZB1hB-1d=16gsfWB3y=xCq5=PtfDGXc-W4ERwvWjRUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:15:31 +0530
From: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To: Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add SBI base extension test
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 8:11 AM Haibo Xu <xiaobo55x@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:12 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicrocom> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 04:20:18PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > > This is the first patch to enable the base extension selftest
> > > for the SBI implementation in KVM. Test for other extensions
> > > will be added later.
> >
> > I'm not sure we want SBI tests in KVM selftests since we already
> > plan to add them to kvm-unit-tests, where they can be used to
> > test both KVM's SBI implementation and M-mode firmware implementations.
> > If we also have them here, then we'll end up duplicating that effort.
> >
>
> Thanks for the information, Andrew!
>
> The SBI KVM selftest was planned last year when I talked with Anup about
> KVM selftest support on RISC-V. Since the kvm-unit-tests has already covered
> it, I'm fine to drop the support in KVM selftest.
Initially we did plan to have all SBI tests under KVM selftests but later
we decided to have SBI tests at a common place which will benefit all
hypervisors and M-mode firmwares implementing SBI spec.
Instead of this, I suggest we should have more selfttests targeting
AIA (CSRs, IMSIC, and APLIC) virtualization.
Regards,
Anup
>
> Regards,
> Haibo
>
> > I do like the approach of only checking for an error, rather than
> > also for a value, for these ID getters. In kvm-unit-tests we're
> > currently requiring that the expected value be passed in, otherwise
> > the whole test is skipped. We could fallback to only checking for
> > an error instead, as is done here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > drew
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> > > .../selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h | 8 +-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/sbi_test.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/sbi_test.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > index 741c7dc16afc..a6acbbcad757 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += rseq_test
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += set_memory_region_test
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_s390x += kvm_binary_stats_test
> > >
> > > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += riscv/sbi_test
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += arch_timer
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += demand_paging_test
> > > TEST_GEN_PROGS_riscv += dirty_log_test
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> > > index ce473fe251dd..df530ac751c4 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/riscv/processor.h
> > > @@ -178,7 +178,13 @@ enum sbi_ext_id {
> > > };
> > >
> > > enum sbi_ext_base_fid {
> > > - SBI_EXT_BASE_PROBE_EXT = 3,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_SPEC_VERSION = 0,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_IMP_ID,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_IMP_VERSION,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_PROBE_EXT,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MVENDORID,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MARCHID,
> > > + SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MIMPID,
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct sbiret {
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/sbi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/sbi_test.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..b9378546e3b6
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/riscv/sbi_test.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +/*
> > > + * sbi_test - SBI API test for KVM's SBI implementation.
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2024 Intel Corporation
> > > + *
> > > + * Test cover the following SBI extentions:
> > > + * - Base: All functions in this extension should be supported
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include "kvm_util.h"
> > > +#include "processor.h"
> > > +#include "test_util.h"
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Test that all functions in the base extension must be supported
> > > + */
> > > +static void base_ext_guest_code(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sbiret ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Since the base extension was introduced in SBI Spec v0.2,
> > > + * assert if the implemented SBI version is below 0.2.
> > > + */
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_SPEC_VERSION, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error && ret.value >= 2, "Get Spec Version Error: ret.error=%ld, "
> > > + "ret.value=%ld\n", ret.error, ret.value);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_IMP_ID, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error && ret.value == 3, "Get Imp ID Error: ret.error=%ld, "
> > > + "ret.value=%ld\n",
> > > + ret.error, ret.value);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_IMP_VERSION, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error, "Get Imp Version Error: ret.error=%ld\n", ret.error);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_PROBE_EXT, SBI_EXT_BASE,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error && ret.value == 1, "Probe ext Error: ret.error=%ld, "
> > > + "ret.value=%ld\n",
> > > + ret.error, ret.value);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MVENDORID, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error, "Get Machine Vendor ID Error: ret.error=%ld\n", ret.error);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MARCHID, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error, "Get Machine Arch ID Error: ret.error=%ld\n", ret.error);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_GET_MIMPID, 0,
> > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > > + __GUEST_ASSERT(!ret.error, "Get Machine Imp ID Error: ret.error=%ld\n", ret.error);
> > > +
> > > + GUEST_DONE();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void sbi_base_ext_test(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > + struct ucall uc;
> > > +
> > > + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, base_ext_guest_code);
> > > + while (1) {
> > > + vcpu_run(vcpu);
> > > + TEST_ASSERT(vcpu->run->exit_reason == UCALL_EXIT_REASON,
> > > + "Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s),",
> > > + vcpu->run->exit_reason, exit_reason_str(vcpu->run->exit_reason));
> > > +
> > > + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> > > + case UCALL_DONE:
> > > + goto done;
> > > + case UCALL_ABORT:
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "Guest assert failed!\n");
> > > + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
> > > + default:
> > > + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected ucall %lu", uc.cmd);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > +done:
> > > + kvm_vm_free(vm);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int main(void)
> > > +{
> > > + sbi_base_ext_test();
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists