From: Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@grsecurity.net>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>,
Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@intel.com>,
Aashish Sharma <aashish@aashishsharma.net>,
Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaszczyk@chromium.org>,
Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Fix treating KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID as inclusive
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:24:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260730182425.1223530-2-dmaluka@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730182425.1223530-1-dmaluka@chromium.org>
KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is (confusingly) exclusive, i.e. the maximum allowed
vcpu_id value is KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID minus one.
Some tests in x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c and kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c
mistakenly treat it as inclusive, in particular, assume that setting
bsp_vcpu_id to KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is valid and should succeed. Fix
those tests.
Fixes: 4b451a57809c ("KVM: selftests: Test max vCPU IDs corner cases")
Fixes: 438a496b9041 ("KVM: selftests: Test vCPU boot IDs above 2^32 and MAX_VCPU_ID")
Signed-off-by: Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>
---
.../selftests/kvm/x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
.../testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c
index 7e2bfb3c3f3b..43f16c052de4 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/max_vcpuid_cap_test.c
@@ -30,22 +30,25 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID)) {
vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *)MAX_VCPU_ID);
- /* Try setting KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID below BOOT_CPU_ID */
- ret = __vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID - 1);
+ /* Try setting KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID below or equal to BOOT_CPU_ID */
+ ret = __vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID);
TEST_ASSERT(ret < 0,
- "Setting KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID below BOOT_CPU_ID should fail");
+ "Setting KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID <= BOOT_CPU_ID should fail");
}
- /* Set KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID */
- vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID);
+ /*
+ * Set KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID. Note: KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is a misnomer,
+ * it actually represents maximum vcpu_id plus one.
+ */
+ vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID + 1);
/* Try to set KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID again */
- ret = __vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID + 1);
+ ret = __vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID, MAX_VCPU_ID + 2);
TEST_ASSERT(ret < 0,
"Setting KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID multiple times should fail");
/* Create vCPU with id beyond KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID cap */
- ret = __vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, (void *)MAX_VCPU_ID);
+ ret = __vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, (void *)(MAX_VCPU_ID + 1));
TEST_ASSERT(ret < 0, "Creating vCPU with ID > MAX_VCPU_ID should fail");
/* Create vCPU with bits 63:32 != 0, but an otherwise valid id */
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c
index 8e3898646c69..1c4ebdf8e82c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_boot_cpu_id.c
@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ static void test_set_invalid_bsp(struct kvm_vm *vm)
int r;
if (max_vcpu_id) {
- r = __vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *)(max_vcpu_id + 1));
- TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "BSP with ID > MAX should fail");
+ r = __vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *)max_vcpu_id);
+ TEST_ASSERT(r == -1 && errno == EINVAL, "BSP with ID >= MAX should fail");
}
r = __vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID, (void *)(1L << 32));
--
2.55.0.508.g3f0d502094-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-30 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 18:24 [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86: Fix off-by-one in max_vcpu_ids bounds checks Dmytro Maluka
2026-07-30 18:24 ` Dmytro Maluka [this message]
2026-07-30 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: selftests: Fix treating KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID as inclusive sashiko-bot
2026-07-30 21:31 ` Dmytro Maluka
2026-07-30 18:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: Fix off-by-one in max_vcpu_ids bounds checks Dmytro Maluka
2026-07-30 18:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: KVM: Clarify that KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID is exclusive Dmytro Maluka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260730182425.1223530-2-dmaluka@chromium.org \
--to=dmaluka@chromium.org \
--cc=aashish@aashishsharma.net \
--cc=chuanxiao.dong@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jaszczyk@chromium.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minipli@grsecurity.net \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.