Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6e5acc94-4459-2385-331f-501d47106a20@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:31:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: Check whether SIDA memop fails for normal
 guests
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220215074824.188440-1-thuth@redhat.com>
 <d576d8f7-980f-3bc6-87ad-5a6ae45609b8@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <d576d8f7-980f-3bc6-87ad-5a6ae45609b8@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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