On 7/11/2024 10:57 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 4:06 PM Pratik R. Sampat pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com wrote:
Introduce testing of SNP ioctl calls. This patch includes both positive and negative tests of various parameters such as flags, page types and policies.
Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com
Tested-by: Peter Gonda pgonda@google.com
.../selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c index 500c67b3793b..1d5c275c11b3 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_smoke_test.c @@ -186,13 +186,130 @@ static void test_sev_launch(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) kvm_vm_free(vm); }
+static int spawn_snp_launch_start(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy, uint8_t flags) +{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;struct kvm_vm *vm;int ret;vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu);ret = snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, flags);kvm_vm_free(vm);return ret;+}
+static void test_snp_launch_start(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) +{
uint8_t i;int ret;ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, policy, 0);TEST_ASSERT(!ret,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should not fail, invalid flag.");for (i = 1; i < 8; i++) {ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, policy, BIT(i));TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid flag.");}To save readers sometime do we want to comment that flags must be zero?
Ack. I can add that comment.
ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, 0, 0);TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy.");ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_SMT, 0);TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy.");ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO, 0);TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy.");Ditto on SMT comment, this could pass if SMT was disabled right?
Ack. Yes, it could. Maybe the check I was speaking about earlier about SMT can be made here as well and based on that we decide if this should fail or pass.
ret = spawn_snp_launch_start(type, SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO |(255 * SNP_POLICY_ABI_MAJOR) |(255 * SNP_POLICY_ABI_MINOR), 0);TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EIO,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid version.");+}
+static void test_snp_launch_update(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) +{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;struct kvm_vm *vm;int ret;for (int pgtype = 0; pgtype <= KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID; pgtype++) {Do we want to test KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID+1 to make sure that fails?
We could. Looking at loop however, we also go through 0x2 which is undefined so I thought we were already taking care of the negative test case here. Having said that, I have no issues in adding one more case that fails.
vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu);snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0);ret = snp_vm_launch_update(vm, pgtype);switch (pgtype) {case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL:case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_ZERO:case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_UNMEASURED:case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_SECRETS:TEST_ASSERT(!ret,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should not fail, invalid Page type.");Double negative maybe: "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should succeed..."
Ack. This double negative is used in a couple of more places. Will clean them up too.
break;case KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID:TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EIO,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid Page type.");This is a valid page type right? But I think the error is from the ASP due to the page being malformed for a CPUID page.
Yes you're absolutely right. It's technically a correct page type just not set up correctly to be used this way so we should see it fail.
break;default:TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid Page type.");}kvm_vm_free(vm);}+}
+void test_snp_launch_finish(uint32_t type, uint64_t policy) +{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;struct kvm_vm *vm;int ret;vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu);snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0);snp_vm_launch_update(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL);ret = snp_vm_launch_finish(vm, 0);TEST_ASSERT(!ret,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should not fail, invalid flag.");Comment is wrong, maybe: "KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should not fail."
Thanks for catching this. Will fix the comment.
kvm_vm_free(vm);for (int i = 1; i < 16; i++) {vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, NULL, &vcpu);snp_vm_launch(vm, policy, 0);snp_vm_launch_update(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_PAGE_TYPE_NORMAL);ret = snp_vm_launch_finish(vm, BIT(i));TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL,"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH should fail, invalid flag.");kvm_vm_free(vm);To save readers sometime do we want to comment that flags must be zero?
Ack.
Thanks again for the review