From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <seanjc@google.com>, <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
<robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests v3 4/4] x86: Add test case for INVVPID with LAM
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:38:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEIhQRMtWoZod345@chao-email> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230412075134.21240-5-binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:51:34PM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
>When LAM is on, the linear address of INVVPID operand can contain
>metadata, and the linear address in the INVVPID descriptor can
>contain metadata.
>
>The added cases use tagged descriptor address or/and tagged target
>invalidation address to make sure the behaviors are expected when
>LAM is on.
>Also, INVVPID cases can be used as the common test cases for VMX
>instruction VMExits.
>
>Signed-off-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
with a few cosmetic comments below:
>---
> x86/vmx_tests.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
>index 5ee1264..381ca1c 100644
>--- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
>+++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
>@@ -3225,6 +3225,65 @@ static void invvpid_test_not_in_vmx_operation(void)
> TEST_ASSERT(!vmx_on());
> }
>
>+#define LAM57_MASK GENMASK_ULL(62, 57)
>+#define LAM48_MASK GENMASK_ULL(62, 48)
>+
>+static inline u64 set_metadata(u64 src, u64 metadata_mask)
>+{
>+ return (src & ~metadata_mask) | (NONCANONICAL & metadata_mask);
>+}
Can you move the duplicate defintions and functions to a header file?
>+
>+/* LAM applies to the target address inside the descriptor of invvpid */
>+static void invvpid_test_lam(void)
>+{
>+ void *vaddr;
>+ struct invvpid_operand *operand;
>+ u64 lam_mask = LAM48_MASK;
>+ bool fault;
>+
>+ if (!this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LAM)) {
>+ report_skip("LAM is not supported, skip INVVPID with LAM");
>+ return;
>+ }
...
>+
>+ if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LA57) && read_cr4() & X86_CR4_LA57)
>+ lam_mask = LAM57_MASK;
>+
>+ vaddr = alloc_vpage();
>+ install_page(current_page_table(), virt_to_phys(alloc_page()), vaddr);
>+ /*
>+ * Since the stack memory address in KUT doesn't follow kernel address
>+ * space partition rule, reuse the memory address for descriptor and
>+ * the target address in the descriptor of invvpid.
>+ */
>+ operand = (struct invvpid_operand *)vaddr;
>+ operand->vpid = 0xffff;
>+ operand->gla = (u64)vaddr;
>+
>+ write_cr4_safe(read_cr4() | X86_CR4_LAM_SUP);
>+ if (!(read_cr4() & X86_CR4_LAM_SUP)) {
>+ report_skip("Failed to enable LAM_SUP");
>+ return;
>+ }
It might be better to enable LAM_SUP right after above check for the LAM CPUID
bit. And no need to verify the result because there is a dedicated test case
already in patch 2.
>+
>+ operand = (struct invvpid_operand *)vaddr;
>+ operand->gla = set_metadata(operand->gla, lam_mask);
>+ fault = test_for_exception(GP_VECTOR, ds_invvpid, operand);
>+ report(!fault, "INVVPID (LAM on): untagged pointer + tagged addr");
>+
>+ operand = (struct invvpid_operand *)set_metadata((u64)operand, lam_mask);
>+ operand->gla = (u64)vaddr;
>+ fault = test_for_exception(GP_VECTOR, ds_invvpid, operand);
>+ report(!fault, "INVVPID (LAM on): tagged pointer + untagged addr");
>+
>+ operand = (struct invvpid_operand *)set_metadata((u64)operand, lam_mask);
>+ operand->gla = set_metadata(operand->gla, lam_mask);
>+ fault = test_for_exception(GP_VECTOR, ds_invvpid, operand);
>+ report(!fault, "INVVPID (LAM on): tagged pointer + tagged addr");
>+
>+ write_cr4_safe(read_cr4() & ~X86_CR4_LAM_SUP);
>+}
>+
> /*
> * This does not test real-address mode, virtual-8086 mode, protected mode,
> * or CPL > 0.
>@@ -3282,6 +3341,7 @@ static void invvpid_test(void)
> invvpid_test_pf();
> invvpid_test_compatibility_mode();
> invvpid_test_not_in_vmx_operation();
>+ invvpid_test_lam();
operand->gla is checked only in INVVPID_ADDR mode. So, the lam test should be
moved under "if (types & (1u << INVVPID_ADDR))" a few lines above.
> }
>
> /*
>--
>2.25.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-21 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-12 7:51 [kvm-unit-tests v3 0/4] x86: Add test cases for LAM Binbin Wu
2023-04-12 7:51 ` [kvm-unit-tests v3 1/4] x86: Allow setting of CR3 LAM bits if LAM supported Binbin Wu
2023-04-21 2:02 ` Chao Gao
2023-04-23 1:42 ` Binbin Wu
2023-04-12 7:51 ` [kvm-unit-tests v3 2/4] x86: Add test case for LAM_SUP Binbin Wu
2023-04-21 3:32 ` Chao Gao
2023-04-12 7:51 ` [kvm-unit-tests v3 3/4] x86: Add test cases for LAM_{U48,U57} Binbin Wu
2023-04-21 5:06 ` Chao Gao
2023-04-23 3:07 ` Binbin Wu
2023-04-12 7:51 ` [kvm-unit-tests v3 4/4] x86: Add test case for INVVPID with LAM Binbin Wu
2023-04-21 5:38 ` Chao Gao [this message]
2023-04-23 3:41 ` Binbin Wu
2023-04-23 6:13 ` Binbin Wu
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=ZEIhQRMtWoZod345@chao-email \
--to=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robert.hu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@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