From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam11on2056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.223.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C43282FC; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:32:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.223.56 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724344330; cv=fail; b=Q+8jxJ+q4jSV3s9+k532bTgLL+Gtw+DPMmBn+Y9Q7N80bu3HzAfIqmyB8mm+dUUtulUUxubnwxes5vJneXb/PUUnnN9Gb/t4VaJLydZPFOrfcykjAhchCihoRWUPeDs/nMhc+ZApLkNAu4RAOWgmboOtU8p+Wr9GiPGSBv2cUEE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724344330; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lwY+jG3lJRVNXtoEoxUvc4EDYm8cR7A4eGjnEXzCMrw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=RvPeHAFChBrwRkEjXY4SZO/PDnfjK2fgLTX7y+Jb/yVJCtrqAgfJQJtWnHnSKn6a1oUPGJixrUJjff/CiKYa59SQST86iJfYLHIE93wylupn8Ch1okrH/6n6ztrhnJjt6YidcaMweCCrOVkRzB6zip218ECTVBRLZS9tog+8tas= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=2; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amd.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amd.com header.i=@amd.com header.b=cPfwhELY; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.223.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amd.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=amd.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amd.com header.i=@amd.com header.b="cPfwhELY" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VZaQ7PFDVeVa3XyO92otXg1aHXTHgPhPoXLKD8Rm0ksmo7Q3P2+vvKLOw5K3ah16A0Hvf7NKuomd/dJiBivApRLJQS8WuIRZ5tQybUldZCAWJhYxQ675Pyneu8bn7vh5jmS7dmJuNXF8HX5kKpglg7jUfyAqu4c6sWqYlMyKON7Nnsiz+lLpvieaFIhp8DOrFGCPWdqypCMxq9qHNQAxXvnDaNsaAIxGoumgC+DRnPr3RhLqRiGtx3RhSm3dktete34wMR+RLqslm6/Oy9HuQWk4rkdKQ6BXokWTwnIup9vfX0f//lT52Xf84Im1kvf4TOb1vKJsfK6WLd6rRRVccg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=S8H1fOQPDLdTnOsXgRh/BkThRnzW3N3HPDN35VhlHzI=; b=n681KoY1Bs2sCizpNRM1CnZYOIArN6x25Zrkr7yYIorZbWsiCId9lb9Y5IoePQxBkCGNmwHWdwbMQ4L8EPfb9XNelyhu1xNqOUJOErCWfctnmP2S4i/+NC1gibP4P4De7GU9YzqDyhOZRPXscigGElQxwO/BaFLi+/A0zrSETHJ1BJmqCo3g2hS5X7/1yDJ/triky8qdeYZWM/Z9IYBxgskuMPIBkRF+XMnSA0E5ZucHBrYGnDM+yiNS+ESmKr1PA0m+QAhUS+ZWQZDxblD6L5++cdCy/uuu3xHFOpO2D2fLim4+KMyhRDOTOsQhoaf1IiF2ximhZK7C8JK+7nwqAw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=vger.kernel.org smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amd.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=S8H1fOQPDLdTnOsXgRh/BkThRnzW3N3HPDN35VhlHzI=; b=cPfwhELYZU4utm2yBEMfcYQI+P+9yb7Pz2cm864/AEsQEqfRDu+atuqc1GSczvRbc82xS7zOXaQCxe71ceLoziJ6Gs0GRccl6KGhRb10+N7M+uEPf8V0oOAxN6pyej6lVWqpp/nbuIUJZcvpfCYEvOjnh9lpXBr2ZG8IyRebcR8= Received: from SN7PR04CA0179.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:125::34) by MW3PR12MB4410.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:5b::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7897.18; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:32:05 +0000 Received: from SA2PEPF00001509.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:125:cafe::d8) by SN7PR04CA0179.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:806:125::34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7897.19 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:32:05 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 165.204.84.17) smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=amd.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C Received: from SATLEXMB04.amd.com (165.204.84.17) by SA2PEPF00001509.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.242.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.7897.11 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:32:05 +0000 Received: from [10.236.31.51] (10.180.168.240) by SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:32:04 -0500 Message-ID: <05e8d2ae-e978-44b0-b433-b72f38aed60e@amd.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:32:04 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: selftests: Add a CoCo-specific test for KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY To: "Aithal, Srikanth" , CC: , , , , , , , References: <20240816192310.117456-1-pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com> <20240816192310.117456-9-pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com> <2996bcee-4687-4822-a5a0-e83d89301477@amd.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Pratik R. Sampat" In-Reply-To: <2996bcee-4687-4822-a5a0-e83d89301477@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: SATLEXMB03.amd.com (10.181.40.144) To SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: SA2PEPF00001509:EE_|MW3PR12MB4410:EE_ X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 685310b1-f643-4d0b-7ad3-08dcc2c7f59a X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;ARA:13230040|1800799024|82310400026|376014|36860700013; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: =?utf-8?B?eFRpZ3hQNDJtUStLNmRYd0lkSzVGWVJleWpVWFJ2ajJmT2I2WmpxMFNXeHBT?= =?utf-8?B?UGdVTUlTYmtKNW5IU21hcTlrSXFXM3NOYWhXTU1seTcrcW1IVDVVcHhQYjBV?= =?utf-8?B?S1hBV2prVVUxU0RyRWJuTE81dGlIVzAycnJ2eHJReFE4S1liMkVtMy84N3hX?= =?utf-8?B?VGdUZFZMcXZRNlJUd3ZYbHB6SFFraVNETkVTd1MwUGxwaExjRFEvbUllNGJV?= =?utf-8?B?VkVHb1YrWE4wTFZ1a2lQdGpxdjNubEtpNDlKTysvZm5nVG9PL2xFSlhjdlV6?= =?utf-8?B?K09pT1ZLYkhheE1mZXNhS1NaK2pXMi9PT3FweWNqV1BBRzczdDZ0SXBJc2Ja?= =?utf-8?B?K3YzZ2JuRnptclBaZnVYTndmZUE4Y0lZZnpSM2gwaFVwWCtnM3ZlVGlnMXph?= =?utf-8?B?RWszdEExR3I5RDhIZ0p1MUJwQm12Q3lYVEx3QzREaFlIT2tIUDNZZVFlMW4z?= =?utf-8?B?aWxjNkdxaGtsS3N4K1dkcnlaa3FQZ2ZuV1V5cy8xMGRoOVVHMHliS25nQjRK?= =?utf-8?B?NlU3aDMvM2pYTFErS0UvcFB5Ris3MG80N1E4SFZmK2dwdUxhcEtJTTUxYUxp?= =?utf-8?B?Z2Zrd3M1S3dsNkFyQmE3elQzWml6blZQT1Jyb1ZzcnE1Mkx3T2s0RUErSzli?= =?utf-8?B?ZDBXa2g3a1Y3NTkrT1dyTHI5cEx1ZjJIUGxPeFpNMkx4dWh6WDJBWFQrUlhK?= =?utf-8?B?dlZubFpOVVJnQmUvQzd4ZnFpdmpmR0pmSkJ1akZtZzl2UWdRczhGaTZTQlMx?= =?utf-8?B?WTZ2Y2h2SXhLQklqMys0T1NyQnYydWF6eVVOdkhzWm1NVWQ4aFpnZ3NyUWkw?= =?utf-8?B?eS9kS3ZEbzMyR09mZFltdmpIVCt2aVBwd2kvbW8rNmFYWU5MNHF6MllXQXUr?= =?utf-8?B?NWFiUDY4VmRUbTh4T0dabWpDZ2RScitLaCtMNC9nMFdueEl3UnRXYmdKZVVH?= =?utf-8?B?SHRtRjlCbTVKdDFXbVlwMUpJNjFINkVabDdsMXRXdzRSMjNqZFJUaGh0RXZY?= =?utf-8?B?OHcrQlZDcjA1TGxid0RoaHp2bTkxK0tpVUdEUWVlV1N5OWJGbUVicndPYjhz?= =?utf-8?B?T29DL1ZXOGZWSXlYMG5ucVN4T0dEMjl1TzVlcVZGYWlUY1BxSkxuQ3U4YzFL?= =?utf-8?B?T2VJMXVubWJYUkZjSU4zck92d3RVVk1PYzlKeXNFcDVVRkxvYlI0Uk4wN0s5?= =?utf-8?B?R0txQXI1L1hDUUwyQmhRekozL3JhZUczSlEvWmlEZFd0dWtSeS9KMDVWMVFN?= =?utf-8?B?UHdzWFVXSFM1OUtCT1hhMSt4aitrblBGa0ZCRlpZa2dNaDJsTTVLT1o3Ukhq?= =?utf-8?B?U0tYU3RCaTUwYk8vSlNqbm1YVytRUlZVaXBsK3crelZyaHZKR3dHTTgxUHFh?= =?utf-8?B?bVhRRGtyVmhWbUxSZ2kvSnJIQkhPUm04TGhDUzNjeUwwcGpSbzl4alNuY01X?= =?utf-8?B?Mm55NXFXRzRXV1FsYW1YQTl3OGFHcjdEU21MdmNmV1pMdHI2WEhibS8vNkIy?= =?utf-8?B?YTRpSXNvdjdiVjFicU5tZHFLRE9zdzRRSEErZEVNTS9mNE5Gek5WeVJIaVVR?= =?utf-8?B?VEx1VEpnY3dmSEc1ZUMzMkdrT3VKMDVpZGRCRDNvS1VrMktBZzlRNGNnRitF?= =?utf-8?B?THRTaDZ5UVZpZ0xBTk9QWGFsZExnTXJMTHY1aE4rSHZQSVl6R1JDdi9yZ1ZK?= =?utf-8?B?dHhLRUFJaW11OC92d0tLUVBja3dsMm5pRmNhTEMzNGh5RWdHVlUrMFpxOFFE?= =?utf-8?B?MFQ0SEMvTS9lMjdjSDl0RUdCZ29ReW4zQzVUdXZaT0RzR0U4aXlHUStLV1dq?= =?utf-8?B?bW81M3pJTnhBMU14bDY1Nk1TejZzZkQvNnlzTG5rVFZFQlBSU1kzY3hlSnZq?= =?utf-8?B?SFc1VSttcUpLbGVwZ1o0VE1zTWM3bnpPMEN3VzI3SjJDV3FhbllUT0xHY0tP?= =?utf-8?Q?enyMPh3pOCfk0EXR4Zy1STA7WiIEA4jK?= X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:165.204.84.17;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:CAL;SFV:NSPM;H:SATLEXMB04.amd.com;PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230040)(1800799024)(82310400026)(376014)(36860700013);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2024 16:32:05.3183 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 685310b1-f643-4d0b-7ad3-08dcc2c7f59a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA2PEPF00001509.namprd04.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR12MB4410 On 8/20/2024 1:24 AM, Aithal, Srikanth wrote: > On 8/17/2024 12:53 AM, Pratik R. Sampat wrote: >> From: Michael Roth >> >> SEV, SEV-ES, and SNP have a few corner cases where there is potential >> for KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY to behave differently depending on when it is >> issued during initial guest setup. Exercising these various paths >> requires a bit more fine-grained control over when the >> KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY requests are issued while setting up the guests. >> >> Since these CoCo-specific events are likely to be architecture-specific >> KST helpers, take the existing generic test in pre_fault_memory_test.c >> as a starting template, and then introduce an x86-specific version of >> it with expanded coverage for SEV, SEV-ES, and SNP. >> >> Since there's a reasonable chance that TDX could extend this for similar >> testing of TDX, give it a "coco-" prefix rather than an SEV-specific >> one. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth >> Co-developed-by: Pratik R. Sampat >> Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat >> --- >>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   1 + >>   .../kvm/x86_64/coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c   | 314 ++++++++++++++++++ >>   2 files changed, 315 insertions(+) >>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/ >> coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/ >> selftests/kvm/Makefile >> index 48d32c5aa3eb..65d19b277b06 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile >> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/amx_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/max_vcpuid_cap_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/triple_fault_event_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/recalc_apic_map_test >> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += x86_64/coco_pre_fault_memory_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += access_tracking_perf_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += demand_paging_test >>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86_64 += dirty_log_test >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/ >> coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/ >> coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..e16fe185fb5a >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,314 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +#include >> + >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include "sev.h" >> + >> +/* Arbitrarily chosen values */ >> +#define TEST_SIZE        (SZ_2M + PAGE_SIZE) >> +#define TEST_NPAGES        (TEST_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE) >> +#define TEST_SLOT        10 >> +#define TEST_GPA        0x100000000ul >> +#define TEST_GVA        0x100000000ul >> + >> +enum prefault_snp_test_type { >> +    /* Skip pre-faulting tests. */ >> +    NO_PREFAULT_TYPE = 0, >> +    /* >> +     * Issue KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY for GFNs mapping non-private memory >> +     * before finalizing the initial guest contents (e.g. via >> +     * KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH for SNP guests). >> +     * >> +     * This should result in failure since KVM explicitly disallows >> +     * KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY from being issued prior to finalizing the >> +     * initial guest contents. >> +     */ >> +    PREFAULT_SHARED_BEFORE_FINALIZING = 0, >> +    /* >> +     * Issue KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY for GFNs mapping private memory >> +     * before finalizing the initial guest contents (e.g. via >> +     * KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH for SNP guests). >> +     * >> +     * This should result in failure since KVM explicitly disallows >> +     * KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY from being issued prior to finalizing the >> +     * initial guest contents. >> +     */ >> +    PREFAULT_PRIVATE_BEFORE_FINALIZING, >> +    /* >> +     * Issue KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY for GFNs mapping shared/private >> +     * memory after finalizing the initial guest contents >> +     * (e.g. via * KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_FINISH for SNP guests). >> +     * >> +     * This should succeed since pre-faulting is supported for both >> +     * non-private/private memory once the guest contents are finalized. >> +     */ >> +    PREFAULT_PRIVATE_SHARED_AFTER_FINALIZING >> +}; >> + >> +static void guest_code_sev(void) >> +{ >> +    int i; >> + >> +    GUEST_ASSERT(rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_SEV) & MSR_AMD64_SEV_ENABLED); >> + >> +    for (i = 0; i < TEST_NPAGES; i++) { >> +        uint64_t *src = (uint64_t *)(TEST_GVA + i * PAGE_SIZE); >> +        uint64_t val = *src; >> + >> +        /* Validate the data stored in the pages */ >> +        if ((i < TEST_NPAGES / 2 && val != i + 1) || >> +            (i >= TEST_NPAGES / 2 && val != 0)) { >> +            GUEST_FAIL("Inconsistent view of memory values in guest"); >> +        } >> +    } >> + >> +    if (rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_SEV) & MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_ENABLED) { >> +        wrmsr(MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB, GHCB_MSR_TERM_REQ); >> +        __asm__ __volatile__("rep; vmmcall"); >> +        GUEST_FAIL("This should be unreachable."); >> +    } >> + >> +    GUEST_DONE(); >> +} >> + >> +static void __pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size, >> +                   u64 left, bool expect_fail) >> +{ >> +    struct kvm_pre_fault_memory range = { >> +        .gpa = gpa, >> +        .size = size, >> +        .flags = 0, >> +    }; >> +    int ret, save_errno; >> +    u64 prev; >> + >> +    do { >> +        prev = range.size; >> +        ret = __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, &range); >> +        save_errno = errno; >> +        TEST_ASSERT((range.size < prev) ^ (ret < 0), >> +                "%sexpecting range.size to change on %s", >> +                ret < 0 ? "not " : "", >> +                ret < 0 ? "failure" : "success"); >> +    } while (ret >= 0 ? range.size : save_errno == EINTR); >> + >> +    TEST_ASSERT(expect_fail ? !(range.size == left) : (range.size == >> left), >> +            "[EXPECT %s] completed with %lld bytes left, expected %" >> PRId64, >> +            expect_fail ? "FAIL" : "PASS", >> +            range.size, left); >> + >> +    if (left == 0) { >> +        TEST_ASSERT(expect_fail ? ret : !ret, >> +                "[EXPECT %s] KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", >> +                expect_fail ? "FAIL" : "PASS"); >> +    } else { >> +        /* >> +         * For shared memory, no memory slot causes RET_PF_EMULATE. It >> +         * results in -ENOENT. >> +         * >> +         * For private memory, no memory slot is an error case returning >> +         * -EFAULT, but it also possible the only the GPA ranges backed >> +         *  by a slot are marked as private, in which case the noslot >> +         *  range will also result in -ENOENT. >> +         * >> +         *  So allow both errors for now, but in the future it would be >> +         *  good to distinguish between these cases to tighten up the >> +         *  error-checking. >> +         */ >> +        TEST_ASSERT(expect_fail ? !ret : >> +                (ret && (save_errno == EFAULT || save_errno == ENOENT)), >> +                "[EXPECT %s] KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", >> +                expect_fail ? "FAIL" : "PASS"); >> +    } >> +} >> + >> +static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, >> +                 u64 size, u64 left) >> +{ >> +    __pre_fault_memory(vcpu, gpa, size, left, false); >> +} >> + >> +static void pre_fault_memory_negative(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, >> +                      u64 size, u64 left) >> +{ >> +    __pre_fault_memory(vcpu, gpa, size, left, true); >> +} >> + >> +static void pre_fault_memory_snp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_vm >> *vm, >> +                 bool private, enum prefault_snp_test_type p_type) >> +{ >> +    if (p_type == PREFAULT_SHARED_BEFORE_FINALIZING) >> +        pre_fault_memory_negative(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> + >> +    snp_vm_launch_start(vm, SNP_POLICY); >> + >> +    if (p_type == PREFAULT_SHARED_BEFORE_FINALIZING) >> +        pre_fault_memory_negative(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> + >> +    if (private) { >> +        /* >> +         * Make sure when pages are pre-faulted later after >> +         * finalization they are treated the same as a private >> +         * access by the guest so that the expected gmem >> +         * backing pages are used. >> +         */ >> +        vm_mem_set_private(vm, TEST_GPA, TEST_SIZE); >> +        if (p_type == PREFAULT_PRIVATE_BEFORE_FINALIZING) >> +            pre_fault_memory_negative(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    } else { >> +        if (p_type == PREFAULT_SHARED_BEFORE_FINALIZING) >> +            pre_fault_memory_negative(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    } >> + >> +    snp_vm_launch_update(vm); >> + >> +    if (p_type == PREFAULT_SHARED_BEFORE_FINALIZING) >> +        pre_fault_memory_negative(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> + >> +    snp_vm_launch_finish(vm); >> + >> +    /* >> +     * After finalization, pre-faulting either private or shared >> +     * ranges should work regardless of whether the pages were >> +     * encrypted as part of setting up initial guest state. >> +     */ >> +    if (p_type == PREFAULT_PRIVATE_SHARED_AFTER_FINALIZING) { >> +        pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +        pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, >> PAGE_SIZE); >> +        pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, >> PAGE_SIZE); >> +    } >> +} >> + >> +static void pre_fault_memory_sev(unsigned long vm_type, struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> +                 struct kvm_vm *vm) >> +{ >> +    uint32_t policy = (vm_type == KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM) ? >> SEV_POLICY_ES : 0; >> + >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE); >> + >> +    sev_vm_launch(vm, policy); >> + >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE); >> + >> +    sev_vm_launch_measure(vm, alloca(256)); >> + >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE); >> + >> +    sev_vm_launch_finish(vm); >> + >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA, SZ_2M, 0); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE); >> +    pre_fault_memory(vcpu, TEST_GPA + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE); >> +} >> + >> +static void test_pre_fault_memory_sev(unsigned long vm_type, bool >> private, >> +                      enum prefault_snp_test_type p_type) >> +{ >> +    struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; >> +    struct kvm_vm *vm; >> +    struct ucall uc; >> +    int i; >> + >> +    vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(vm_type, guest_code_sev, &vcpu); >> + >> +    vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, >> +                    TEST_GPA, TEST_SLOT, TEST_NPAGES, >> +                    (vm_type == KVM_X86_SNP_VM) ? >> KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD : 0); >> + >> +    /* >> +     * Make sure guest page table is in agreement with what pages >> will be >> +     * initially encrypted by the ASP. >> +     */ >> +    if (private) >> +        vm_mem_set_protected(vm, TEST_SLOT, TEST_GPA, TEST_NPAGES); >> + >> +    virt_map(vm, TEST_GVA, TEST_GPA, TEST_NPAGES); >> + >> +    /* >> +     * Populate the pages to compare data read from the guest >> +     * Populate the first half with data and second half as all zeros. >> +     */ >> +    for (i = 0; i < TEST_NPAGES; i++) { >> +        uint64_t *hva = addr_gva2hva(vm, TEST_GVA + i * PAGE_SIZE); >> + >> +        if (i < TEST_NPAGES / 2) >> +            *hva = i + 1; >> +        else >> +            *hva = 0; >> +    } >> + >> +    if (vm_type == KVM_X86_SNP_VM) >> +        pre_fault_memory_snp(vcpu, vm, private, p_type); >> +    else >> +        pre_fault_memory_sev(vm_type, vcpu, vm); >> + >> +    vcpu_run(vcpu); >> + >> +    if (vm->type == KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM || vm->type == KVM_X86_SNP_VM) { >> +        TEST_ASSERT(vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT, >> +                "Wanted SYSTEM_EVENT, got %s", >> +                exit_reason_str(vcpu->run->exit_reason)); >> +        TEST_ASSERT_EQ(vcpu->run->system_event.type, >> KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SEV_TERM); >> +        TEST_ASSERT_EQ(vcpu->run->system_event.ndata, 1); >> +        TEST_ASSERT_EQ(vcpu->run->system_event.data[0], >> GHCB_MSR_TERM_REQ); >> +        goto out; >> +    } >> + >> +    switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { >> +    case UCALL_DONE: >> +        break; >> +    case UCALL_ABORT: >> +        REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); >> +    default: >> +        TEST_FAIL("Unexpected exit: %s", >> +              exit_reason_str(vcpu->run->exit_reason)); >> +    } >> + >> +out: >> +    kvm_vm_free(vm); >> +} >> + >> +static void test_pre_fault_memory(unsigned long vm_type, bool private) >> +{ >> +    int pt; >> + >> +    if (vm_type && !(kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(vm_type))) { >> +        pr_info("Skipping tests for vm_type 0x%lx\n", vm_type); >> +        return; >> +    } >> + >> +    switch (vm_type) { >> +    case KVM_X86_SEV_VM: >> +    case KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM: >> +        test_pre_fault_memory_sev(vm_type, private, NO_PREFAULT_TYPE); >> +        break; >> +    case KVM_X86_SNP_VM: >> +        for (pt = 0; pt <= PREFAULT_PRIVATE_SHARED_AFTER_FINALIZING; >> pt++) >> +            test_pre_fault_memory_sev(vm_type, private, pt); >> +        break; >> +    default: >> +        abort(); >> +    } >> +} >> + >> +int main(int argc, char *argv[]) >> +{ >> +    TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY)); >> + >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SEV_VM, false); >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SEV_VM, true); >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, false); >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, true); >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SNP_VM, false); >> +    test_pre_fault_memory(KVM_X86_SNP_VM, true); >> + >> +    return 0; >> +} > > Hello Pratik, > I see below failure while running this test [kvm-x86/next + mentioned > patches]: > > # selftests: kvm: coco_pre_fault_memory_test > # Random seed: 0x6b8b4567 > # ==== Test Assertion Failure ==== > #   x86_64/coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:145: expect_fail ? !(range.size > == left) : (range.size == left) > #   pid=202665 tid=202665 errno=9 - Bad file descriptor > #      1        0x0000000000402870: __pre_fault_memory at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:145 > #      2        0x00000000004031c9: pre_fault_memory_negative at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:184 > #      3         (inlined by) pre_fault_memory_snp at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:202 > #      4         (inlined by) test_pre_fault_memory_sev at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:344 > #      5        0x00000000004033c0: test_pre_fault_memory at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:401 (discriminator 3) > #      6        0x00000000004024d7: main at > coco_pre_fault_memory_test.c:417 (discriminator 2) > #      7        0x00007f9474829d8f: ?? ??:0 > #      8        0x00007f9474829e3f: ?? ??:0 > #      9        0x0000000000402574: _start at ??:? > #   [EXPECT FAIL] completed with 0 bytes left, expected 0 > not ok 66 selftests: kvm: coco_pre_fault_memory_test # exit=254 > Hi Srikanth, Thanks for testing these patches. I believe that you may have to test these patches either over the kvm-x86/fixes branch or over kvm/[queue/next] since there are a few fixes (eg. KVM: x86: disallow pre-fault for SNP VMs before initialization, etc.) which are not present in kvm-x86/next. Do let me know if that works for you instead for the tests? Thanks! Pratik > >