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"); + 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"); + kvm_vm_free(vm);
return 0;
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:48:24 +0100 Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com 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
looks rather straightforward
Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda imbrenda@linux.ibm.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");- 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");- kvm_vm_free(vm);
return 0;
On 2/15/22 08:48, 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;
What is the rational for that constant? Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?
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");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");kvm_vm_free(vm);
return 0;
On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 2/15/22 08:48, 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;
What is the rational for that constant? Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?
Right, it's rather a random value.
Thomas
On 2/15/22 10:59, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 15/02/2022 10.54, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 2/15/22 08:48, 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;
What is the rational for that constant? Any would do, as long as size + offset < PAGE_SIZE, correct?
Right, it's rather a random value.
Ah, ok.
Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch scgl@linux.ibm.com
Thomas
Am 15.02.22 um 08:48 schrieb Thomas Huth:
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
Thanks, applied.
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");- 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");- kvm_vm_free(vm);
return 0;
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.
- 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, -- Shuah
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
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Christian Borntraeger -
Claudio Imbrenda -
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch -
Shuah Khan -
Thomas Huth