* [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID
@ 2025-07-21 15:51 Marc Zyngier
2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
2025-07-22 14:39 ` Sebastian Ott
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2025-07-21 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm, kvm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Cc: Joey Gouly, Suzuki K Poulose, Oliver Upton, Zenghui Yu,
Will Deacon, Mark Rutland, jackabt
Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets
broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest
that will shout if the expected value isn't found.
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com
---
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
index ce817a975e50a..e1eb1ba238a2a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
@@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_irq
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_lpi_stress
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vpmu_counter_access
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/no-vgic-v3
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/kvm-uuid
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += access_tracking_perf_test
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arch_timer
TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += coalesced_io_test
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..89d9c8b182ae5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
+#include <asm/kvm.h>
+#include <kvm_util.h>
+
+#include "processor.h"
+
+/*
+ * Do NOT redefine these constants, or try to replace them with some
+ * "common" version. They are hardcoded here to detect any potential
+ * breakage happening in the rest of the kernel.
+ *
+ * KVM UID value: 28b46fb6-2ec5-11e9-a9ca-4b564d003a74
+ */
+#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 0xb66fb428U
+#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 0xe911c52eU
+#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 0x564bcaa9U
+#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3 0x743a004dU
+
+static void guest_code(void)
+{
+ struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
+
+ smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
+
+ __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, "a0 = %lx\n", res.a0);
+ __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 &&
+ res.a1 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 &&
+ res.a2 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 &&
+ res.a3 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3,
+ "Unexpected KVM-specific UID %lx %lx %lx %lx\n", res.a0, res.a1, res.a2, res.a3);
+ GUEST_DONE();
+}
+
+int main (int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ struct kvm_vm *vm;
+ struct ucall uc;
+ bool guest_done = false;
+
+ vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
+
+ while (!guest_done) {
+ vcpu_run(vcpu);
+
+ switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
+ case UCALL_SYNC:
+ break;
+ case UCALL_DONE:
+ guest_done = true;
+ break;
+ case UCALL_ABORT:
+ REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
+ break;
+ case UCALL_PRINTF:
+ printf("%s", uc.buffer);
+ break;
+ default:
+ TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit");
+ }
+ }
+
+ kvm_vm_free(vm);
+
+ return 0;
+}
--
2.39.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID
2025-07-21 15:51 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID Marc Zyngier
@ 2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
2025-07-22 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-08-06 17:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-07-22 14:39 ` Sebastian Ott
1 sibling, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Jones @ 2025-07-22 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: kvmarm, kvm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Joey Gouly,
Suzuki K Poulose, Oliver Upton, Zenghui Yu, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, jackabt
Hi Marc,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets
> broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest
> that will shout if the expected value isn't found.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> index ce817a975e50a..e1eb1ba238a2a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_irq
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_lpi_stress
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vpmu_counter_access
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/no-vgic-v3
> +TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/kvm-uuid
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += access_tracking_perf_test
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arch_timer
> TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += coalesced_io_test
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..89d9c8b182ae5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> +#include <asm/kvm.h>
> +#include <kvm_util.h>
> +
> +#include "processor.h"
> +
> +/*
> + * Do NOT redefine these constants, or try to replace them with some
> + * "common" version. They are hardcoded here to detect any potential
> + * breakage happening in the rest of the kernel.
> + *
> + * KVM UID value: 28b46fb6-2ec5-11e9-a9ca-4b564d003a74
> + */
> +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 0xb66fb428U
> +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 0xe911c52eU
> +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 0x564bcaa9U
> +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3 0x743a004dU
> +
> +static void guest_code(void)
> +{
> + struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> +
> + smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +
> + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, "a0 = %lx\n", res.a0);
Should this check res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS instead?
> + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 &&
> + res.a1 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 &&
> + res.a2 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 &&
> + res.a3 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3,
> + "Unexpected KVM-specific UID %lx %lx %lx %lx\n", res.a0, res.a1, res.a2, res.a3);
> + GUEST_DONE();
> +}
> +
> +int main (int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> + struct ucall uc;
> + bool guest_done = false;
> +
> + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
> +
> + while (!guest_done) {
> + vcpu_run(vcpu);
> +
> + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> + case UCALL_SYNC:
> + break;
> + case UCALL_DONE:
> + guest_done = true;
> + break;
> + case UCALL_ABORT:
> + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
> + break;
> + case UCALL_PRINTF:
> + printf("%s", uc.buffer);
> + break;
> + default:
> + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit");
> + }
> + }
This is becoming a very common and useful pattern. I wonder if it's time
for a ucall helper
static void ucall_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
void (*sync_func)(struct kvm_vcpu *, void *),
void *sync_data)
{
bool guest_done = false;
struct ucall uc;
while (!guest_done) {
vcpu_run(vcpu);
switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
case UCALL_SYNC:
if (sync_func)
sync_func(vcpu, sync_data);
break;
case UCALL_DONE:
guest_done = true;
break;
case UCALL_ABORT:
REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
break;
case UCALL_PRINTF:
printf("%s", uc.buffer);
break;
default:
TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit");
}
}
}
Thanks,
drew
> +
> + kvm_vm_free(vm);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> --
> 2.39.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID
2025-07-21 15:51 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID Marc Zyngier
2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
@ 2025-07-22 14:39 ` Sebastian Ott
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Ott @ 2025-07-22 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: kvmarm, kvm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Joey Gouly,
Suzuki K Poulose, Oliver Upton, Zenghui Yu, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, jackabt
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets
> broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest
> that will shout if the expected value isn't found.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID
2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
@ 2025-07-22 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-08-06 17:10 ` Marc Zyngier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2025-07-22 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Jones
Cc: kvmarm, kvm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Joey Gouly,
Suzuki K Poulose, Oliver Upton, Zenghui Yu, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, jackabt
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:18:10 +0100,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets
> > broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest
> > that will shout if the expected value isn't found.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > index ce817a975e50a..e1eb1ba238a2a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_irq
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_lpi_stress
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vpmu_counter_access
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/no-vgic-v3
> > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/kvm-uuid
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += access_tracking_perf_test
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arch_timer
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += coalesced_io_test
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..89d9c8b182ae5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> > +#include <errno.h>
> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm.h>
> > +#include <kvm_util.h>
> > +
> > +#include "processor.h"
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Do NOT redefine these constants, or try to replace them with some
> > + * "common" version. They are hardcoded here to detect any potential
> > + * breakage happening in the rest of the kernel.
> > + *
> > + * KVM UID value: 28b46fb6-2ec5-11e9-a9ca-4b564d003a74
> > + */
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 0xb66fb428U
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 0xe911c52eU
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 0x564bcaa9U
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3 0x743a004dU
> > +
> > +static void guest_code(void)
> > +{
> > + struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> > +
> > + smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> > +
> > + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, "a0 = %lx\n", res.a0);
>
> Should this check res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS instead?
Yeah, probably.
>
> > + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 &&
> > + res.a1 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 &&
> > + res.a2 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 &&
> > + res.a3 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3,
> > + "Unexpected KVM-specific UID %lx %lx %lx %lx\n", res.a0, res.a1, res.a2, res.a3);
> > + GUEST_DONE();
> > +}
> > +
> > +int main (int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > + struct ucall uc;
> > + bool guest_done = false;
> > +
> > + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code);
> > +
> > + while (!guest_done) {
> > + vcpu_run(vcpu);
> > +
> > + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> > + case UCALL_SYNC:
> > + break;
> > + case UCALL_DONE:
> > + guest_done = true;
> > + break;
> > + case UCALL_ABORT:
> > + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
> > + break;
> > + case UCALL_PRINTF:
> > + printf("%s", uc.buffer);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit");
> > + }
> > + }
>
> This is becoming a very common and useful pattern. I wonder if it's time
> for a ucall helper
>
> static void ucall_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> void (*sync_func)(struct kvm_vcpu *, void *),
> void *sync_data)
> {
> bool guest_done = false;
> struct ucall uc;
>
> while (!guest_done) {
> vcpu_run(vcpu);
>
> switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> case UCALL_SYNC:
> if (sync_func)
> sync_func(vcpu, sync_data);
> break;
> case UCALL_DONE:
> guest_done = true;
> break;
> case UCALL_ABORT:
> REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
> break;
> case UCALL_PRINTF:
> printf("%s", uc.buffer);
> break;
> default:
> TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit");
> }
> }
> }
Honestly, I don't know. My understanding is that the common kvm
selftest code is now mostly a pile of x86-specific stuff, and I've
made it a goal not to touch any of it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID
2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
2025-07-22 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2025-08-06 17:10 ` Marc Zyngier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2025-08-06 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Jones
Cc: kvmarm, kvm, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Joey Gouly,
Suzuki K Poulose, Oliver Upton, Zenghui Yu, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland, jackabt
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:18:10 +0100,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets
> > broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest
> > that will shout if the expected value isn't found.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 +
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > index ce817a975e50a..e1eb1ba238a2a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm
> > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_irq
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_lpi_stress
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vpmu_counter_access
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/no-vgic-v3
> > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/kvm-uuid
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += access_tracking_perf_test
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arch_timer
> > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += coalesced_io_test
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..89d9c8b182ae5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> > +#include <errno.h>
> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm.h>
> > +#include <kvm_util.h>
> > +
> > +#include "processor.h"
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Do NOT redefine these constants, or try to replace them with some
> > + * "common" version. They are hardcoded here to detect any potential
> > + * breakage happening in the rest of the kernel.
> > + *
> > + * KVM UID value: 28b46fb6-2ec5-11e9-a9ca-4b564d003a74
> > + */
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 0xb66fb428U
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 0xe911c52eU
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 0x564bcaa9U
> > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3 0x743a004dU
> > +
> > +static void guest_code(void)
> > +{
> > + struct arm_smccc_res res = {};
> > +
> > + smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> > +
> > + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, "a0 = %lx\n", res.a0);
>
> Should this check res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS instead?
Sorry for the delay, but now that I'm awake, it is obvious this
doesn't work at all. A0-A3 contain the full UID.
While checking for A0 != NOT_SUPPORTED is valid, checking for
A0 == SUCCESS cannot work on KVM (we'd get 0xb66fb428 instead of 0).
So actually, this assertion is meaningless, and I'm dropping it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-08-06 17:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-07-21 15:51 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID Marc Zyngier
2025-07-22 9:18 ` Andrew Jones
2025-07-22 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-08-06 17:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-07-22 14:39 ` Sebastian Ott
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).