Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:31:22 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal guests | From | Thomas Huth <> |
| |
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
| |