From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0BC21B191 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753175895; cv=none; b=W5e5q32bbrFHUDhHcxwNPZGYrTn8NHaqwtseJ5qPt3TyEcxTYZnkSABpjehYX9/krqVBN7T3EWotf6I95gfFrf/GONJP0rqTJIStHlsSxENALQSgdnhnB9bW4TEfHHpru8LzuuThQg3kb6XGppp+b5ihXTrBy+pjLVbEm2dPJyo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753175895; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hhQufx2HD4Ts5oBIe9054Ablz+7kZBZZDBYP7X7WX8w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VaybuvNXo6ASlVDMynnONodak4wIDLc4eS7MvulEshEExHrmV9BI+hYxqFYm2kg6ZkP6gKt+V3QdBM7yZkExJ4GjRPSJ+5Yd63hnbCr2QXhgBjPSEssRJWkYogoHI4sjjXmCHiQ81omQijxkokYtDQDYgibNZGaCmAzn3HdVPNo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b=OTVQysmG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b="OTVQysmG" Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a6cdc27438so4225218f8f.2 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ventanamicro.com; s=google; t=1753175892; x=1753780692; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PHFy2ib8R7VJ1RgEKC7LoLc8P9a6wfUZ5RjA5auf7Xg=; b=OTVQysmGrmuif6DmNRNFif9dKjwr87E10rSElsGtt0Q8txcxiAdpyq+AdKZSS7lkso ut9dDjVPq9QcRNhwLbREY6Wmwo/W56qfWeR9GcdhQ5LatcJTG9szH3iaU/JU9MUE5dh/ knE5SjzwCb9yEgRtKh/IERZGeUIZuGKGhpKRPj93EkkX/XejsrNdIbvfDbOCEtJo2mE4 jg8iaaNDG1EpiAlZw5VqY3aypRT3IrwoKB02DVXzSts9diMuFTWlQJkPAImLVkAhIXQK uOC2AKVDM7yks8mNWHQRXov76OkHNTyGoYTY5EjlTs4UBHravOwHRBeyLx16Zh+aQH83 DNzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753175892; x=1753780692; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PHFy2ib8R7VJ1RgEKC7LoLc8P9a6wfUZ5RjA5auf7Xg=; b=jD6PM9MMMTrCyR31d3dJfqT16VTfGdFY7wyamKaWjE0ff1A9bh8SZaZYZsimMOK+zU PeohP00IaUGuHZGGvm3j/KzEA5Gxiec5FpMgXk4NJ6uHuja0hcU4yknS/NrS2mPHlv/r H3fzvKxzLue/cRoUsxHwabaXeKlUtXjiTR+H4eDYoe/w8sLVFDe+sAytYMjIhIQxsaxn vWRTRsis5GRPAsob/z0gxowhBI1ZE34urOMrppU0nongv9qNl6naunFhCxxWHzwvwceO M8EwQ5pHpyIyMQeyWMd54JCjNWZp4h8bB9xPXozyVyGzlX93b8ywU8CWJ/e709AAjt9Q WmKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yys2MfMBmpoD1otDzZZI4xP+xwNIWfG/rrMtkZgNQxAY+o9xLGe 6B+sUGPabwB2Hab0C7cOwTxscXXhDLDgEdUpejUBD5e5oRhcPxR5MrI8d8IryXnuU1Y= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsoq5FDMyzfYLeAssbBtxzUl9KcxUQ4yW21VRwGffmI6qC81eaTeq1gH4i6zqD nmMsnPpC/l4ABvHWM77NSeytHH/WzWE7kzskbZb1ChF4lR4XvkvopgLksK0tRCsuLwqf7lRZzYa JSF5GWIL8UtPYlA5LHZMTnmXYRxMRJK1x6JxVouSbSq2fG1opmkLm9op1TIx+TN9JACPhLLvUxk lKsDJL+lHO1XGTzllSkULOc6eCKpbHQiLYSz42zyQAKui/27+jL8gT+jIH8r6akmLRWKgCizPFY a7pG2teWimGNspD+c0mGGOhWptHpVAnLhp7xDUOurAD5+SAgtgAPyEjUmuU8EgSXSvL6L6s+y0K mYqXIfOjGfw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHQBAZgY70xI+dtP0yh6yvLOKV0BlM/uTMSPEIciqVVZwMQSsJNaHFcQVjMoLC9XYi1w0Ju7g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2892:b0:3a4:f379:65bc with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b60e523efamr18492284f8f.40.1753175891891; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a02:8308:a00c:e200::f15c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-3b61ca48a2esm12946678f8f.51.2025.07.22.02.18.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 11:18:10 +0200 From: Andrew Jones To: Marc Zyngier Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , jackabt@amazon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID Message-ID: <20250722-87ac9d7e0b27cf7c67a4fbd3@orel> References: <20250721155136.892255-1-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250721155136.892255-1-maz@kernel.org> 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 > 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 > +#include > +#include > +#include > + > +#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 >