From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] KVM: selftests: Explicitly require instructions bytes
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:41:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1sXNuM2e9p3DF92@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221018214612.3445074-3-dmatlack@google.com>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> Explicitly require instruction bytes to be available in
> run->emulation_failure by asserting that they are present. Note that the
> test already requires the instruction bytes to be present because that's
> the only way the test will advance the RIP past the flds and get to
> GUEST_DONE().
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> ---
> .../smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test.c | 47 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test.c
> index 6ed996988a5a..c5353ad0e06d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test.c
> @@ -65,30 +65,29 @@ static void process_exit_on_emulation_error(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> "Unexpected suberror: %u",
> run->emulation_failure.suberror);
>
> - if (run->emulation_failure.ndata >= 1) {
> - flags = run->emulation_failure.flags;
> - if ((flags & KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION_FLAG_INSTRUCTION_BYTES) &&
> - run->emulation_failure.ndata >= 3) {
> - insn_size = run->emulation_failure.insn_size;
> - insn_bytes = run->emulation_failure.insn_bytes;
> -
> - TEST_ASSERT(insn_size <= 15 && insn_size > 0,
> - "Unexpected instruction size: %u",
> - insn_size);
> -
> - TEST_ASSERT(is_flds(insn_bytes, insn_size),
> - "Unexpected instruction. Expected 'flds' (0xd9 /0)");
> -
> - /*
> - * If is_flds() succeeded then the instruction bytes
> - * contained an flds instruction that is 2-bytes in
> - * length (ie: no prefix, no SIB, no displacement).
> - */
> - vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s);
> - regs.rip += 2;
> - vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s);
> - }
> - }
> + flags = run->emulation_failure.flags;
> + TEST_ASSERT(run->emulation_failure.ndata >= 3 &&
> + flags & KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION_FLAG_INSTRUCTION_BYTES,
> + "run->emulation_failure is missing instruction bytes");
> +
> + insn_size = run->emulation_failure.insn_size;
> + insn_bytes = run->emulation_failure.insn_bytes;
> +
> + TEST_ASSERT(insn_size <= 15 && insn_size > 0,
> + "Unexpected instruction size: %u",
> + insn_size);
Unnecessary newline, insn_size fits comfortably on the line above.
> +
> + TEST_ASSERT(is_flds(insn_bytes, insn_size),
> + "Unexpected instruction. Expected 'flds' (0xd9 /0)");
> +
> + /*
> + * If is_flds() succeeded then the instruction bytes contained an flds
> + * instruction that is 2-bytes in length (ie: no prefix, no SIB, no
> + * displacement).
> + */
> + vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s);
> + regs.rip += 2;
This whole sequence is silly. Assert that size > 0 but < 15, then assert that
it's >= 2, then skip exactly two bytes and effective "assert" that it's '2.
And while I appreciate the ModR/M decoding, IMO it does more harm than good. If
someone can follow the ModR/M decoding, they can figure out a hardcode opcode.
E.g. IMO this is much simpler and will be easier to debug.
#define FLDS_MEM_EAX ".byte 0xd9, 0x00"
static void guest_code(void)
{
__asm__ __volatile__(FLDS_MEM_EAX
:: "a"(MEM_REGION_GVA));
GUEST_DONE();
}
static void process_exit_on_emulation_error(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run;
struct kvm_regs regs;
uint8_t *insn_bytes;
uint64_t flags;
TEST_ASSERT(run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR,
"Unexpected exit reason: %u (%s)",
run->exit_reason,
exit_reason_str(run->exit_reason));
TEST_ASSERT(run->emulation_failure.suberror == KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION,
"Unexpected suberror: %u",
run->emulation_failure.suberror);
flags = run->emulation_failure.flags;
TEST_ASSERT(run->emulation_failure.ndata >= 3 &&
flags & KVM_INTERNAL_ERROR_EMULATION_FLAG_INSTRUCTION_BYTES,
"run->emulation_failure is missing instruction bytes");
TEST_ASSERT(run->emulation_failure.insn_size == 2,
"Expected a 2-byte opcode for 'flds', got %d bytes",
run->emulation_failure.insn_size);
insn_bytes = run->emulation_failure.insn_bytes;
TEST_ASSERT(insn_bytes[0] == 0xd9 && insn_bytes[1] == 0,
"Expected 'flds [eax]', opcode '0xd9 0x00', got opcode 0x%x 0x%x\n",
insn_bytes[0], insn_bytes[1]);
vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s);
regs.rip += 2;
vcpu_regs_set(vcpu, ®s);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-27 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-18 21:46 [PATCH v2 0/8] KVM: selftests: Fix and clean up emulator_error_test David Matlack
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] KVM: selftests: Rename emulator_error_test to smaller_maxphyaddr_emulation_test David Matlack
2022-10-27 23:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] KVM: selftests: Explicitly require instructions bytes David Matlack
2022-10-27 23:41 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] KVM: selftests: Delete dead ucall code David Matlack
2022-10-27 23:44 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-28 23:59 ` David Matlack
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] KVM: selftests: Move flds instruction emulation failure handling to header David Matlack
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Use BIT{,_ULL}() for PFERR masks David Matlack
2022-10-27 23:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] KVM: selftests: Copy KVM PFERR masks into selftests David Matlack
2022-10-28 0:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] KVM: selftests: Expect #PF(RSVD) when TDP is disabled David Matlack
2022-10-28 0:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-28 23:51 ` David Matlack
2022-10-31 16:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-18 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] KVM: selftest: Add a test for KVM_CAP_EXIT_ON_EMULATION_FAILURE David Matlack
2022-10-28 0:34 ` Sean Christopherson
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=Y1sXNuM2e9p3DF92@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).