On Wed, Jul 10, 2024, Pratik R. Sampat 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
.../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);
Is a vCPU actually necessary/interesting?
- 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);
s/spawn/__test, because "spawn" implies there's something living after this.
- TEST_ASSERT(!ret,
"KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START should not fail, invalid flag.");
This should go away once vm_sev_ioctl() handles the assertion, but this assert message is bad (there's no 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.");
Print the flag, type, and policy. In general, please think about what information would be helpful if this fails.