* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-25 19:28 [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3 Mark Brown
@ 2022-01-25 19:48 ` Shuah Khan
2022-01-26 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-01-26 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2022-01-25 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown, Marc Zyngier, Shuah Khan
Cc: James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose, linux-arm-kernel,
kvmarm, linux-kselftest, Shuah Khan
On 1/25/22 12:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> The arch_timer and vgic_irq kselftests assume that they can create a
> vgic-v3, using the library function vgic_v3_setup() which aborts with a
> test failure if it is not possible to do so. Since vgic-v3 can only be
> instantiated on systems where the host has GICv3 this leads to false
> positives on older systems where that is not the case.
>
> Fix this by changing vgic_v3_setup() to return an error if the vgic can't
> be instantiated and have the callers skip if this happens. We could also
> exit flagging a skip in vgic_v3_setup() but this would prevent future test
> cases conditionally deciding which GIC to use or generally doing more
> complex output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c | 7 ++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c | 5 +++++
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> index 9ad38bd360a4..791d38404652 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
> {
> struct kvm_vm *vm;
> unsigned int i;
> + int ret;
> int nr_vcpus = test_args.nr_vcpus;
>
> vm = vm_create_default_with_vcpus(nr_vcpus, 0, 0, guest_code, NULL);
> @@ -382,7 +383,11 @@ static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
>
> ucall_init(vm, NULL);
> test_init_timer_irq(vm);
> - vgic_v3_setup(vm, nr_vcpus, 64, GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + ret = vgic_v3_setup(vm, nr_vcpus, 64, GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pr_info("Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
>
> /* Make all the test's cmdline args visible to the guest */
> sync_global_to_guest(vm, test_args);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> index e6c7d7f8fbd1..8c6b61b8e6aa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> @@ -761,6 +761,11 @@ static void test_vgic(uint32_t nr_irqs, bool level_sensitive, bool eoi_split)
>
> gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vm, 1, nr_irqs,
> GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + if (gic_fd < 0) {
> + pr_info("Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
> +
>
> vm_install_exception_handler(vm, VECTOR_IRQ_CURRENT,
> guest_irq_handlers[args.eoi_split][args.level_sensitive]);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> index b3a0fca0d780..647c18733e1b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ int vgic_v3_setup(struct kvm_vm *vm, unsigned int nr_vcpus, uint32_t nr_irqs,
> nr_vcpus, nr_vcpus_created);
>
> /* Distributor setup */
> - gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, false);
> + gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, true);
Assume the flag change is intentional. The reason isn't obvious in the
change log
> + if (gic_fd == -1)
> + return -1;
>
> kvm_device_access(gic_fd, KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_NR_IRQS,
> 0, &nr_irqs, true);
>
Looks good to me otherwise - thanks for adding the skips
Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-25 19:28 [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3 Mark Brown
2022-01-25 19:48 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2022-01-26 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
2022-01-26 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Koller @ 2022-01-26 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Marc Zyngier, Shuah Khan, linux-kselftest, kvmarm,
linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 07:28:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> The arch_timer and vgic_irq kselftests assume that they can create a
> vgic-v3, using the library function vgic_v3_setup() which aborts with a
> test failure if it is not possible to do so. Since vgic-v3 can only be
> instantiated on systems where the host has GICv3 this leads to false
> positives on older systems where that is not the case.
>
> Fix this by changing vgic_v3_setup() to return an error if the vgic can't
> be instantiated and have the callers skip if this happens. We could also
> exit flagging a skip in vgic_v3_setup() but this would prevent future test
> cases conditionally deciding which GIC to use or generally doing more
> complex output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c | 7 ++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c | 5 +++++
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> index 9ad38bd360a4..791d38404652 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
> {
> struct kvm_vm *vm;
> unsigned int i;
> + int ret;
> int nr_vcpus = test_args.nr_vcpus;
>
> vm = vm_create_default_with_vcpus(nr_vcpus, 0, 0, guest_code, NULL);
> @@ -382,7 +383,11 @@ static struct kvm_vm *test_vm_create(void)
>
> ucall_init(vm, NULL);
> test_init_timer_irq(vm);
> - vgic_v3_setup(vm, nr_vcpus, 64, GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + ret = vgic_v3_setup(vm, nr_vcpus, 64, GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pr_info("Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
>
> /* Make all the test's cmdline args visible to the guest */
> sync_global_to_guest(vm, test_args);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> index e6c7d7f8fbd1..8c6b61b8e6aa 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c
> @@ -761,6 +761,11 @@ static void test_vgic(uint32_t nr_irqs, bool level_sensitive, bool eoi_split)
>
> gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vm, 1, nr_irqs,
> GICD_BASE_GPA, GICR_BASE_GPA);
> + if (gic_fd < 0) {
> + pr_info("Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
> +
>
> vm_install_exception_handler(vm, VECTOR_IRQ_CURRENT,
> guest_irq_handlers[args.eoi_split][args.level_sensitive]);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> index b3a0fca0d780..647c18733e1b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ int vgic_v3_setup(struct kvm_vm *vm, unsigned int nr_vcpus, uint32_t nr_irqs,
> nr_vcpus, nr_vcpus_created);
>
> /* Distributor setup */
> - gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, false);
> + gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, true);
> + if (gic_fd == -1)
> + return -1;
>
> kvm_device_access(gic_fd, KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_NR_IRQS,
> 0, &nr_irqs, true);
> --
> 2.30.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Reviewed-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-25 19:28 [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3 Mark Brown
2022-01-25 19:48 ` Shuah Khan
2022-01-26 1:23 ` Ricardo Koller
@ 2022-01-26 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-26 12:52 ` Mark Brown
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2022-01-26 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Shuah Khan, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kselftest
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:28:51 +0000,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> The arch_timer and vgic_irq kselftests assume that they can create a
> vgic-v3, using the library function vgic_v3_setup() which aborts with a
> test failure if it is not possible to do so. Since vgic-v3 can only be
> instantiated on systems where the host has GICv3 this leads to false
> positives on older systems where that is not the case.
>
> Fix this by changing vgic_v3_setup() to return an error if the vgic can't
> be instantiated and have the callers skip if this happens. We could also
> exit flagging a skip in vgic_v3_setup() but this would prevent future test
> cases conditionally deciding which GIC to use or generally doing more
> complex output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c | 7 ++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_irq.c | 5 +++++
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> index b3a0fca0d780..647c18733e1b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/vgic.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ int vgic_v3_setup(struct kvm_vm *vm, unsigned int nr_vcpus, uint32_t nr_irqs,
> nr_vcpus, nr_vcpus_created);
>
> /* Distributor setup */
> - gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, false);
> + gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, true);
So you now only test whether it is possible to create a virtual GICv3,
but don't actually create it. How does this work?
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-26 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2022-01-26 12:52 ` Mark Brown
2022-01-26 13:05 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-01-26 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: Shuah Khan, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kselftest
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 09:07:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > /* Distributor setup */
> > - gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, false);
> > + gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, true);
> So you now only test whether it is possible to create a virtual GICv3,
> but don't actually create it. How does this work?
Oh, that's rather obscure in the API - so the file descriptor returned
if the test flag is specified can't actually be used?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-26 12:52 ` Mark Brown
@ 2022-01-26 13:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-01-26 13:21 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2022-01-26 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Shuah Khan, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kselftest
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 12:52:22 +0000,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 09:07:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > /* Distributor setup */
> > > - gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, false);
> > > + gic_fd = kvm_create_device(vm, KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3, true);
>
> > So you now only test whether it is possible to create a virtual GICv3,
> > but don't actually create it. How does this work?
>
> Oh, that's rather obscure in the API - so the file descriptor returned
> if the test flag is specified can't actually be used?
No file descriptor is returned at all from the kernel, so you should
always get -1 as populated by kvm_create_device().
See virt/kvm/kvm_main.c::kvm_ioctl_create_device().
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-26 13:05 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2022-01-26 13:21 ` Mark Brown
2022-01-26 13:32 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2022-01-26 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: Shuah Khan, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kselftest
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:05:01PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > So you now only test whether it is possible to create a virtual GICv3,
> > > but don't actually create it. How does this work?
> > Oh, that's rather obscure in the API - so the file descriptor returned
> > if the test flag is specified can't actually be used?
> No file descriptor is returned at all from the kernel, so you should
> always get -1 as populated by kvm_create_device().
> See virt/kvm/kvm_main.c::kvm_ioctl_create_device().
Ugh, right - the descriptor is returned separately to the return code
but is then mapped onto the return code by the library since the library
just aborts on error in the non-test case and in the test case the kernel
returns an inverted boolean which gets passed straight through. Like I
say the API seems a bit confusing here.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] kselftest: kvm/arm64: Skip tests if we can't create a vgic-v3
2022-01-26 13:21 ` Mark Brown
@ 2022-01-26 13:32 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2022-01-26 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Shuah Khan, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, linux-kselftest
aOn Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:21:17 +0000,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:05:01PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > > So you now only test whether it is possible to create a virtual GICv3,
> > > > but don't actually create it. How does this work?
>
> > > Oh, that's rather obscure in the API - so the file descriptor returned
> > > if the test flag is specified can't actually be used?
>
> > No file descriptor is returned at all from the kernel, so you should
> > always get -1 as populated by kvm_create_device().
>
> > See virt/kvm/kvm_main.c::kvm_ioctl_create_device().
>
> Ugh, right - the descriptor is returned separately to the return code
> but is then mapped onto the return code by the library since the library
> just aborts on error in the non-test case and in the test case the kernel
> returns an inverted boolean which gets passed straight through. Like I
> say the API seems a bit confusing here.
That's a very... "kind" way of putting it.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread