From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] x86: Add test coverage for the routing logic when exceptions occur in L2
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:15:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YbJx1iB9ZowrVcuF@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211209182624.2316453-4-aaronlewis@google.com>
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021, Aaron Lewis wrote:
> +static void vmx_exception_test_guest(void)
> +{
> + handler old_gp = handle_exception(GP_VECTOR, vmx_exception_handler_gp);
> + handler old_ud = handle_exception(UD_VECTOR, vmx_exception_handler_ud);
> + handler old_de = handle_exception(DE_VECTOR, vmx_exception_handler_de);
> + handler old_db = handle_exception(DB_VECTOR, vmx_exception_handler_db);
> + handler old_bp = handle_exception(BP_VECTOR, vmx_exception_handler_bp);
> + bool raised_vector = false;
> + u64 old_cr0, old_rflags;
> +
> + asm volatile (
> + /* Return to L1 before starting the tests. */
> + "vmcall\n\t"
> +
> + /* #GP handled by L2*/
> + "mov %[val], %%cr0\n\t"
> + "vmx_exception_test_skip_gp:\n\t"
> + "vmcall\n\t"
> +
> + /* #GP handled by L1 */
> + "mov %[val], %%cr0\n\t"
I would strongly prefer each of these be a standalone subtest in the sense that
each test starts from a clean state, configures the environment as need, then
triggers the exception and checks the results. I absolutely detest the tests
that string a bunch of scenarios together, they inevitably accrue subtle dependencies
between scenarios and are generally difficult/annoying to debug.
Having a gigantic asm blob is also unnecessary. #GP can be generated with a
non-canonical access purely in C. Ditto for #AC though that may or may not be
more readable. #DE probably requires assembly to avoid compiler intervention.
#UD and #BP should be short and sweet. E.g.
It should be fairly straightforward to create a framework to handle running each
test, a la the vmx_tests array. E.g. something like the below (completely untested).
This way there's no need to skip instructions, thus no need for a exposing a bunch
of labels. Each test is isolated, there's no code pairing between L0 and L1/L2, and
adding new tests or running a specific test is trivial.
static u8 vmx_exception_test_vector;
static void vmx_exception_handler(struct ex_regs *regs)
{
report(regs->vector == vmx_exception_test_vector,
"Handling %s in L2's exception handler",
exception_mnemonic(vmx_exception_test_vector));
}
static void vmx_gp_test_guest(void)
{
*(volatile u64 *)NONCANONICAL = 0;
}
static void handle_exception_in_l2(u8 vector)
{
handler old_handler = handle_exception(vector, vmx_exception_handler);
u32 old_eb = vmcs_read(EXC_BITMAP);
vmx_exception_test_vector = vector;
vmcs_write(EXC_BITMAP, old_eb & ~(1u << vector));
enter_guest();
report(vmcs_read(EXI_REASON) == VMX_VMCALL,
"%s handled by L2", exception_mnemonic(vector));
vmcs_write(EXC_BITMAP, old_eb);
handle_exception(old_handler);
}
static void handle_exception_in_l1(u32 vector, const char *vector_name)
{
u32 old_eb = vmcs_read(EXC_BITMAP);
vmx_exception_test_vector = 0xff;
vmcs_write(EXC_BITMAP, old_eb | (1u << vector));
enter_guest();
report((vmcs_read(EXI_REASON) == VMX_EXC_NMI) &&
((vmcs_read(EXI_INTR_INFO) & 0xff) == vector),
"%s handled by L1", exception_mnemonic(vector));
vmcs_write(EXC_BITMAP, old_eb);
}
struct vmx_exception_test {
u8 vector;
void (*guest_code)(void);
}
struct vmx_exception_test vmx_exception_tests[] {
{ GP_VECTOR, vmx_gp_test_guest },
};
static void vmx_exception_test(void)
{
struct vmx_exception_test *t;
handler old_ex;
enter_guest();
assert_exit_reason(VMX_VMCALL);
skip_exit_insn();
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_exception_tests); i++) {
t = &vmx_exception_tests[i];
test_set_guest(t->guest_code);
handle_exception_in_l2(t->vector);
handle_exception_in_l1(t->vector);
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-09 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-09 18:26 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/3] Add additional testing for routing L2 exceptions Aaron Lewis
2021-12-09 18:26 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/3] x86: Fix a #GP from occurring in usermode's exception handlers Aaron Lewis
2021-12-09 20:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-09 18:26 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/3] x86: Align L2's stacks Aaron Lewis
2021-12-09 20:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-09 18:26 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/3] x86: Add test coverage for the routing logic when exceptions occur in L2 Aaron Lewis
2021-12-09 21:15 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-12-14 1:19 ` Aaron Lewis
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=YbJx1iB9ZowrVcuF@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aaronlewis@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@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