From: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
To: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, KVMARM <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
ARMLinux <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@linux.dev>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] KVM: arm64: selftests: Handle feature fields with nonzero minimum value correctly
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:02:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240115220210.3966064-2-jingzhangos@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240115220210.3966064-1-jingzhangos@google.com>
There are some feature fields with nonzero minimum valid value. Make
sure get_safe_value() won't return invalid field values for them.
Also fix a bug that wrongly uses the feature bits type as the feature
bits sign causing all fields as signed in the get_safe_value() and
get_invalid_value().
Fixes: 54a9ea73527d ("KVM: arm64: selftests: Test for setting ID register from usersapce")
Reported-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Reported-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@linux.dev>
Tested-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
---
* v1 -> v2:
- Use ftr_bits->safe_val for minimal safe value for type FTR_LOWER_SAFE.
- Fix build error reported by Zenghui with gcc-10.3.1.
---
.../selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
index bac05210b539..16e2338686c1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/set_id_regs.c
@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ struct reg_ftr_bits {
enum ftr_type type;
uint8_t shift;
uint64_t mask;
+ /*
+ * For FTR_EXACT, safe_val is used as the exact safe value.
+ * For FTR_LOWER_SAFE, safe_val is used as the minimal safe value.
+ */
int64_t safe_val;
};
@@ -65,13 +69,13 @@ struct test_feature_reg {
static const struct reg_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0_el1[] = {
S_REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, PMUVer, 0),
- REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, DebugVer, 0),
+ REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, DebugVer, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DebugVer_IMP),
REG_FTR_END,
};
static const struct reg_ftr_bits ftr_id_dfr0_el1[] = {
- S_REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_DFR0_EL1, PerfMon, 0),
- REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_DFR0_EL1, CopDbg, 0),
+ S_REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_DFR0_EL1, PerfMon, ID_DFR0_EL1_PerfMon_PMUv3),
+ REG_FTR_BITS(FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_DFR0_EL1, CopDbg, ID_DFR0_EL1_CopDbg_Armv8),
REG_FTR_END,
};
@@ -224,13 +228,13 @@ uint64_t get_safe_value(const struct reg_ftr_bits *ftr_bits, uint64_t ftr)
{
uint64_t ftr_max = GENMASK_ULL(ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS - 1, 0);
- if (ftr_bits->type == FTR_UNSIGNED) {
+ if (ftr_bits->sign == FTR_UNSIGNED) {
switch (ftr_bits->type) {
case FTR_EXACT:
ftr = ftr_bits->safe_val;
break;
case FTR_LOWER_SAFE:
- if (ftr > 0)
+ if (ftr > ftr_bits->safe_val)
ftr--;
break;
case FTR_HIGHER_SAFE:
@@ -252,7 +256,7 @@ uint64_t get_safe_value(const struct reg_ftr_bits *ftr_bits, uint64_t ftr)
ftr = ftr_bits->safe_val;
break;
case FTR_LOWER_SAFE:
- if (ftr > 0)
+ if (ftr > ftr_bits->safe_val)
ftr--;
break;
case FTR_HIGHER_SAFE:
@@ -276,7 +280,7 @@ uint64_t get_invalid_value(const struct reg_ftr_bits *ftr_bits, uint64_t ftr)
{
uint64_t ftr_max = GENMASK_ULL(ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS - 1, 0);
- if (ftr_bits->type == FTR_UNSIGNED) {
+ if (ftr_bits->sign == FTR_UNSIGNED) {
switch (ftr_bits->type) {
case FTR_EXACT:
ftr = max((uint64_t)ftr_bits->safe_val + 1, ftr + 1);
base-commit: 0dd3ee31125508cd67f7e7172247f05b7fd1753a
--
2.43.0.381.gb435a96ce8-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-15 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-15 22:02 [PATCH v1] KVM: arm64: selftests: Handle feature fields with nonzero minimum value correctly Jing Zhang
2024-01-15 22:02 ` Jing Zhang [this message]
2024-01-15 23:07 ` [PATCH v2] " Itaru Kitayama
2024-01-24 20:59 ` Oliver Upton
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=20240115220210.3966064-2-jingzhangos@google.com \
--to=jingzhangos@google.com \
--cc=itaru.kitayama@fujitsu.com \
--cc=itaru.kitayama@linux.dev \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox