Re: [RFC 2/5] selftests: KVM: Decouple SEV ioctls from asserts

["Pratik R. Sampat" <pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com>]

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your review.

On 8/9/2024 10:40 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
>> This commit separates the SEV, SEV-ES, SEV-SNP ioctl calls from its
> 
> Don't start with "This commit".  Please read Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst,
> and by extension, Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst.

Sure, I will frame the message better.

> 
>> positive test asserts. This is done so that negative tests can be
>> introduced and both kinds of testing can be performed independently
>> using the same base helpers of the ioctl.
>>
>> This commit also adds additional parameters such as flags to improve
>> testing coverage for the ioctls.
>>
>> Cleanups performed with no functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat <pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com>
>> ---
>>  .../selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h        |  20 +--
>>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/sev.c  | 145 ++++++++++++------
>>  2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
>> index 43b6c52831b2..ef99151e13a7 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
>> @@ -37,14 +37,16 @@ enum sev_guest_state {
>>  #define GHCB_MSR_TERM_REQ	0x100
>>  
>>  void sev_vm_launch(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy);
>> -void sev_vm_launch_measure(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint8_t *measurement);
>> -void sev_vm_launch_finish(struct kvm_vm *vm);
>> +int sev_vm_launch_start(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy);
>> +int sev_vm_launch_update(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy);
>> +int sev_vm_launch_measure(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint8_t *measurement);
>> +int sev_vm_launch_finish(struct kvm_vm *vm);
>>  
>>  bool is_kvm_snp_supported(void);
>>  
>> -void snp_vm_launch(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy);
>> -void snp_vm_launch_update(struct kvm_vm *vm);
>> -void snp_vm_launch_finish(struct kvm_vm *vm);
>> +int snp_vm_launch(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t policy, uint8_t flags);
>> +int snp_vm_launch_update(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint8_t page_type);
>> +int snp_vm_launch_finish(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint16_t flags);
>>  
>>  struct kvm_vm *vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(uint32_t type, void *guest_code,
>>  					   struct kvm_vcpu **cpu);
>> @@ -98,7 +100,7 @@ static inline void sev_register_encrypted_memory(struct kvm_vm *vm,
>>  	vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_MEMORY_ENCRYPT_REG_REGION, &range);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static inline void snp_launch_update_data(struct kvm_vm *vm, vm_paddr_t gpa,
>> +static inline int snp_launch_update_data(struct kvm_vm *vm, vm_paddr_t gpa,
>>  					   uint64_t size, uint8_t type)
>>  {
>>  	struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_update update_data = {
>> @@ -108,10 +110,10 @@ static inline void snp_launch_update_data(struct kvm_vm *vm, vm_paddr_t gpa,
>>  		.type = type,
>>  	};
>>  
>> -	vm_sev_ioctl(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE, &update_data);
>> +	return __vm_sev_ioctl(vm, KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE, &update_data);
> 
> Don't introduce APIs and then immediately rewrite all of the users.  If you want
> to rework similar APIs, do the rework, then add the new APIs.  Doing things in
> this order adds a pile of pointless churn.
> 
> But that's a moot point, because it's far easier to just add __snp_launch_update_data().
> And if you look through other APIs in kvm_util.h, you'll see that the strong
> preference is to let vm_ioctl(), or in this case vm_sev_ioctl(), do the heavy
> lifting.  Yeah, it requires copy+pasting marshalling parameters into the struct,
> but that's relatively uninteresting code, _and_ piggybacking the "good" version
> means you can't do things like pass in a garbage virtual address (because the
> "good" version always guarantees a good virtual address).

I am a little confused by this.

Are you suggesting that I leave the original functions intact with using
vm_sev_ioctl() and have an additional variant such as
__snp_launch_update_data() which calls into __vm_sev_ioctl() to decouple
the ioctl from the assert for negative asserts?

Or, do you suggest that I alter vm_sev_ioctl() to handle both positive
and negative asserts?

Thanks!
-Pratik