From: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH 09/12] KVM: selftests: Move all PTE accesses into nested_create_pte()
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:58:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251001145816.1414855-10-yosry.ahmed@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251001145816.1414855-1-yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
In preparation for making the nested mapping functions work for NPT,
move all logic that directly accesses the PTE into nested_create_pte(),
as these accesses will be different for SVM.
Stop using struct eptPageTableEntry in the caller, instead pass a
uint64_t pointer (and add an assertion on the size to make sure it stays
correct).
Calculate whether or not an EPT entry is a leaf in __nested_pg_map(),
and return the address from nested_create_pte() to __nested_pg_map().
Also, set the access and dirty bits in nested_create_pte() for leaf
entries. This matches the current behavior and removes all direct
accesses to the EPT entry from __nested_pg_map().
Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/vmx.c | 69 +++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/vmx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/vmx.c
index 673756b27e903..b0e6267eac806 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/vmx.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/vmx.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct eptPageTableEntry {
uint64_t ignored_62_52:11;
uint64_t suppress_ve:1;
};
+kvm_static_assert(sizeof(struct eptPageTableEntry) == sizeof(uint64_t));
struct eptPageTablePointer {
uint64_t memory_type:3;
@@ -42,6 +43,8 @@ struct eptPageTablePointer {
uint64_t address:40;
uint64_t reserved_63_52:12;
};
+kvm_static_assert(sizeof(struct eptPageTablePointer) == sizeof(uint64_t));
+
int vcpu_enable_evmcs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
uint16_t evmcs_ver;
@@ -362,35 +365,46 @@ void prepare_vmcs(struct vmx_pages *vmx, void *guest_rip, void *guest_rsp)
init_vmcs_guest_state(guest_rip, guest_rsp);
}
-static void nested_create_pte(struct kvm_vm *vm,
- struct eptPageTableEntry *pte,
- uint64_t nested_paddr,
- uint64_t paddr,
- int current_level,
- int target_level)
+static uint64_t nested_create_pte(struct kvm_vm *vm,
+ uint64_t *pte,
+ uint64_t nested_paddr,
+ uint64_t paddr,
+ int level,
+ bool leaf)
{
- if (!pte->readable) {
- pte->writable = true;
- pte->readable = true;
- pte->executable = true;
- pte->page_size = (current_level == target_level);
- if (pte->page_size)
- pte->address = paddr >> vm->page_shift;
+ struct eptPageTableEntry *epte = (struct eptPageTableEntry *)pte;
+
+ if (!epte->readable) {
+ epte->writable = true;
+ epte->readable = true;
+ epte->executable = true;
+ epte->page_size = leaf;
+
+ if (leaf)
+ epte->address = paddr >> vm->page_shift;
else
- pte->address = vm_alloc_page_table(vm) >> vm->page_shift;
+ epte->address = vm_alloc_page_table(vm) >> vm->page_shift;
+
+ /*
+ * For now mark these as accessed and dirty because the only
+ * testcase we have needs that. Can be reconsidered later.
+ */
+ epte->accessed = leaf;
+ epte->dirty = leaf;
} else {
/*
* Entry already present. Assert that the caller doesn't want a
* leaf entry at this level, and that there isn't a leaf entry
* at this level.
*/
- TEST_ASSERT(current_level != target_level,
+ TEST_ASSERT(!leaf,
"Cannot create leaf entry at level: %u, nested_paddr: 0x%lx",
- current_level, nested_paddr);
- TEST_ASSERT(!pte->page_size,
+ level, nested_paddr);
+ TEST_ASSERT(!epte->page_size,
"Leaf entry already exists at level: %u, nested_paddr: 0x%lx",
- current_level, nested_paddr);
+ level, nested_paddr);
}
+ return epte->address;
}
@@ -398,8 +412,9 @@ void __nested_pg_map(void *root_hva, struct kvm_vm *vm,
uint64_t nested_paddr, uint64_t paddr, int target_level)
{
const uint64_t page_size = PG_LEVEL_SIZE(target_level);
- struct eptPageTableEntry *pt = root_hva, *pte;
- uint16_t index;
+ uint64_t *pt = root_hva, *pte;
+ uint16_t index, address;
+ bool leaf;
TEST_ASSERT(vm->mode == VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K, "Attempt to use "
"unknown or unsupported guest mode, mode: 0x%x", vm->mode);
@@ -427,22 +442,16 @@ void __nested_pg_map(void *root_hva, struct kvm_vm *vm,
for (int level = PG_LEVEL_512G; level >= PG_LEVEL_4K; level--) {
index = (nested_paddr >> PG_LEVEL_SHIFT(level)) & 0x1ffu;
pte = &pt[index];
+ leaf = (level == target_level);
- nested_create_pte(vm, pte, nested_paddr, paddr, level, target_level);
+ address = nested_create_pte(vm, pte, nested_paddr, paddr, level, leaf);
- if (pte->page_size)
+ if (leaf)
break;
- pt = addr_gpa2hva(vm, pte->address * vm->page_size);
+ pt = addr_gpa2hva(vm, address * vm->page_size);
}
- /*
- * For now mark these as accessed and dirty because the only
- * testcase we have needs that. Can be reconsidered later.
- */
- pte->accessed = true;
- pte->dirty = true;
-
}
void nested_pg_map(void *root_hva, struct kvm_vm *vm,
--
2.51.0.618.g983fd99d29-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-01 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-01 14:58 [PATCH 00/12] Extend test coverage for nested SVM Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 01/12] KVM: selftests: Minor improvements to asserts in test_vmx_nested_state() Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 21:44 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 02/12] KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_set_nested_state_test to cover SVM Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 22:40 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-09 23:13 ` Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 03/12] KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_close_while_nested_test " Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 22:44 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 04/12] KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_nested_tsc_scaling_test " Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 22:51 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-09 23:19 ` Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 05/12] KVM: selftests: Remove invalid CR3 test from vmx_tsc_adjust_test Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 22:55 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-09 23:24 ` Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 06/12] KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_tsc_adjust_test to cover SVM Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 23:27 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 07/12] KVM: selftests: Pass the root HVA directly to nested mapping functions Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-09 23:30 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 08/12] KVM: selftests: Use 'leaf' instead of hugepage to describe EPT entries Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-13 18:34 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-13 21:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-10-13 22:25 ` Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-13 22:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-10-13 23:13 ` Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-15 18:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2025-10-13 18:41 ` [PATCH 09/12] KVM: selftests: Move all PTE accesses into nested_create_pte() Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 10/12] KVM: selftests: Move EPT-specific init outside nested_create_pte() Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-13 18:52 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 11/12] KVM: selftests: Refactor generic nested mapping outside VMX code Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-13 19:04 ` Jim Mattson
2025-10-01 14:58 ` [PATCH 12/12] KVM: selftests: Extend vmx_dirty_log_test to cover SVM Yosry Ahmed
2025-10-01 17:37 ` [PATCH 00/12] Extend test coverage for nested SVM Yosry Ahmed
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=20251001145816.1414855-10-yosry.ahmed@linux.dev \
--to=yosry.ahmed@linux.dev \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.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