[kvm-unit-tests v3 PATCH 1/3] vmx: Cleanup test_vmx_vmlaunch to generate clearer and more consolidated test reports

Cathy Avery
2022-02-16T17:01:56Z

In cases when xerror is 0 ( the test is not expected to error ) and
the test does error we get a confusing test result as the vmlaunch status
is based on !xerror:

FAIL: Enable-EPT enabled; EPT page walk length 24: vmlaunch succeeds

This patch also eliminates the double call to report per launch and
clarifies the failure messages. New format suggested by seanjc@google.com

Signed-off-by: Cathy Avery <cavery@redhat.com>
---
x86/vmx_tests.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
index 3d57ed6..0dab98e 100644
--- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
+++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
@@ -3392,14 +3392,21 @@ static void test_vmx_vmlaunch(u32 xerror)
bool success = vmlaunch_succeeds();
u32 vmx_inst_err;

- report(success == !xerror, "vmlaunch %s",
- !xerror ? "succeeds" : "fails");
- if (!success && xerror) {
- vmx_inst_err = vmcs_read(VMX_INST_ERROR);
+ if (!success)
+ vmx_inst_err = vmcs_read(VMX_INST_ERROR);
+
+ if (success && !xerror)
+ report_pass("VMLAUNCH succeeded as expected");
+ else if (success && xerror)
+ report_fail("VMLAUNCH succeeded unexpectedly, wanted VM-Fail with error code = %d",
+ xerror);
+ else if (!success && !xerror)
+ report_fail("VMLAUNCH hit unexpected VM-Fail with error code = %d",
+ vmx_inst_err);
+ else
report(vmx_inst_err == xerror,
- "VMX inst error is %d (actual %d)", xerror,
- vmx_inst_err);
- }
+ "VMLAUNCH hit VM-Fail as expected, wanted error code %d, got %d",
+ xerror, vmx_inst_err);
}

/*
--
2.31.1