From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="sXXfDUci" Received: from mail-pf1-x449.google.com (mail-pf1-x449.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::449]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84C93109 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x449.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6cbe2845ebcso6202532b3a.2 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1701196618; x=1701801418; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O91Uupu7339NvmzBM4XpIhItH5W0W9g2NalbW1uqHV0=; b=sXXfDUciz3s5t18qTXQqBPK0QRwHfDoXwAHLBU4FEbt76xy1CCyIfzYuINW0OGaZOc XPzTg0drGDNmcCFF26U3n0TA3PCX281VYHUlfgar61NIF/yexlnBqzXat2Z5osQMPHzE 8AGltxMkbm2DKUvdmyFPb10AV1JVK7oMxll17zb3i13DMt/ybgcnaH3sVfBsw47QmkNc uH47mDEfMcL/q5d7r8q7bfXf+NOlaJe/mNA1Q38Y2M+60IhIRrenlddv0U/HBxo8gi3j bbk6WaNjlp7KxifGRbbyfDWH01VDgjWZudsdj1h+2QshJnUtl7Uy7aNlRy5XbbrroEwt zG+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701196618; x=1701801418; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O91Uupu7339NvmzBM4XpIhItH5W0W9g2NalbW1uqHV0=; b=An10aMCGyp5WsZkrrI25Nx0Q++A+I4mFosUnHApqGzz9RejubjjT2uy2MGpgOPTkPQ IpyhFdkZclbMT0FYu8jf6rWrZwyFtE6wxjt+mxFPwj4gEMPOLDdaIkJICdd9TlbLZaq4 7mIVuxQhPxYQEOOqX/J4TaeZbQfALBhksM3pPIN8S+BFCjn5YL348lNH7fHTbouf/N2b Rch6cVo3jvrEckPZPm8bb4kQJfxL/SFgSlrMDXQJYaFyuPRbsZ+NgHx3/0UTr8Fog834 TKCTfKSb/qzxoupHffflViqDEJBwyRqh5JBRrWvwz5Bk+8f6gmgA0QDwS98pdlsZ1CTf huHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyCnxwh64pijXrAT2q3m/SB94Vt7zFihx5RmbIRDFWqlMnjz+1C trB5+320eREX9FxLFNfihgmCETQr/MQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHHKYVk1YH4G56UI7cwpbQhbgUXkv7M9X5puoa7iZZH1O4DvGlAXRcA0vIVhRPQPUJ+/0kD/V/tQ/s= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6a00:1389:b0:6cb:95ab:cf8d with SMTP id t9-20020a056a00138900b006cb95abcf8dmr4156728pfg.6.1701196618074; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:56 -0800 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20231107182159.404770-1-seanjc@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix MWAIT error message when guest assertion fails From: Sean Christopherson To: Maxim Levitsky Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Sun, Nov 19, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 10:21 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Print out the test and vector as intended when a guest assert fails an > > assertion regarding MONITOR/MWAIT faulting. Unfortunately, the guest > > printf support doesn't detect such issues at compile-time, so the bug > > manifests as a confusing error message, e.g. in the most confusing case, > > the test complains that it got vector "0" instead of expected vector "0". > > > > Fixes: 0f52e4aaa614 ("KVM: selftests: Convert the MONITOR/MWAIT test to use printf guest asserts") > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > index 80aa3d8b18f8..853802641e1e 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > @@ -27,10 +27,12 @@ do { \ > > \ > > if (fault_wanted) \ > > __GUEST_ASSERT((vector) == UD_VECTOR, \ > > - "Expected #UD on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", vector); \ > > + "Expected #UD on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", \ > > + testcase, vector); \ > > else \ > > __GUEST_ASSERT(!(vector), \ > > - "Expected success on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", vector); \ > > + "Expected success on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", \ > > + testcase, vector); \ > > } while (0) > > > > static void guest_monitor_wait(int testcase) > > > > base-commit: 45b890f7689eb0aba454fc5831d2d79763781677 > > I think that these days the gcc (and llvm likely) support printf annotations, > and usually complain, we should look at adding these to have a warning in > such cases. Huh. Well now I feel quite stupid for not realizing that's what __attribute__((__format__(printf, ...))) is for. There's even a handy dandy __printf() macro now. I'll post a v2 with the annotations and fixes for all existing violations.