From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E19B24DCF4; Tue, 27 May 2025 08:54:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.15 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748336049; cv=none; b=iRpE3bM9WF4cUU10rnDNIHW+XP7Ae/10SodeBXbcaV8We8iQihAEuvHUTVz8AyskHD9C3kf1dmQ4fyEs6Tj9cLBjx4wYAtUPgcYjjMCRjnYc4b9DH/i7WvUercHckbrgb9Y1eY+y2/CSrF4hesZvuLhf9PdAaWzft5bpnqPOg4Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748336049; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ahN1juhOBybAptIvDNG/Uw4hA0zokWa6fSCXBMIa8ZQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=n2UQcxTjO5gmaZAE3lXE29S1vBUxD/UgurErAVj18m4n552fcTGuJNzeLmzbyb/MEIZOHSfeEaTOzPfCQNdTm7HUdbxlQg/2r3sm985Nte2aLsN923sK16L/9LVTLC6W81JXvK7KyuVUOE0I1nKKFppKj2katJRI9ijJlc/U/Bg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=AokIbjWD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="AokIbjWD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1748336047; x=1779872047; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ahN1juhOBybAptIvDNG/Uw4hA0zokWa6fSCXBMIa8ZQ=; b=AokIbjWDa8jXkKJLrR+vqWqvCXmdQ8Ljn1+SvjcvlToZoa0G927Y2kQO 1EN9fHb79Pj1AjGmvaICX+1To1nfyiUOS8/X+auVsfb6hin+vtFjTBY6X iLsa90ehVtJfqpP0O21a+HdA/yw+gkmWjaOMphHZygw6u+OkLpwqyVEQh +yGLoEQXXaEN7krJiyrq5BACuGs5pgGkeyx8BMQzn+Ny3v3iIndsJbDyO yWQk+12NBdZ+AGMzU+AACpPderNS3xEm8KohEJhNXCi+vvZAuFLHig0Qw 10HY3oL3Dw0o/9U7m5kZmG2pFkaSo8jKtI4+Tyv6v/Fi8h77mwcMAneGj g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Wncp+vI/RNGk+GoE0mwgfg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: L/L0pOddRHinkE2tPM0zaw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11445"; a="50473919" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,317,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="50473919" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by fmvoesa109.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 May 2025 01:54:06 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: DJWU2wIBQVGR2iHz4Ab5dQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: mwknysU4Q3qMo9InnvRemg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,317,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="142717170" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.238.11.3]) ([10.238.11.3]) by orviesa009-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 May 2025 01:53:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1c5cfc23-3f63-404d-a4bf-030c24412b20@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:43 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/51] KVM: selftests: Update guest_memfd_test for INIT_PRIVATE flag To: Ackerley Tng , Ira Weiny Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aik@amd.com, ajones@ventanamicro.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, amoorthy@google.com, anthony.yznaga@oracle.com, anup@brainfault.org, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, bfoster@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, chao.p.peng@intel.com, chenhuacai@kernel.org, dave.hansen@intel.com, david@redhat.com, dmatlack@google.com, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, erdemaktas@google.com, fan.du@intel.com, fvdl@google.com, graf@amazon.com, haibo1.xu@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, hughd@google.com, isaku.yamahata@intel.com, jack@suse.cz, james.morse@arm.com, jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, jgowans@amazon.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, jroedel@suse.de, jthoughton@google.com, jun.miao@intel.com, kai.huang@intel.com, keirf@google.com, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, kirill.shutemov@intel.com, liam.merwick@oracle.com, maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com, mail@maciej.szmigiero.name, maz@kernel.org, mic@digikod.net, michael.roth@amd.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, muchun.song@linux.dev, nikunj@amd.com, nsaenz@amazon.es, oliver.upton@linux.dev, palmer@dabbelt.com, pankaj.gupta@amd.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, pdurrant@amazon.co.uk, peterx@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, pvorel@suse.cz, qperret@google.com, quic_cvanscha@quicinc.com, quic_eberman@quicinc.com, quic_mnalajal@quicinc.com, quic_pderrin@quicinc.com, quic_pheragu@quicinc.com, quic_svaddagi@quicinc.com, quic_tsoni@quicinc.com, richard.weiyang@gmail.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, rientjes@google.com, roypat@amazon.co.uk, rppt@kernel.org, seanjc@google.com, shuah@kernel.org, steven.price@arm.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, tabba@google.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, usama.arif@bytedance.com, vannapurve@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, vkuznets@redhat.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com, will@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, xiaoyao.li@intel.com, yan.y.zhao@intel.com, yilun.xu@intel.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, zhiquan1.li@intel.com References: <65afac3b13851c442c72652904db6d5755299615.1747264138.git.ackerleytng@google.com> <6825f0f3ac8a7_337c392942d@iweiny-mobl.notmuch> Content-Language: en-US From: Binbin Wu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/17/2025 1:42 AM, Ackerley Tng wrote: > Ira Weiny writes: > >> Ackerley Tng wrote: >>> Test that GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE is only valid when >>> GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED is set. >>> >>> Change-Id: I506e236a232047cfaee17bcaed02ee14c8d25bbb >>> Signed-off-by: Ackerley Tng >>> --- >>> .../testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c | 36 ++++++++++++------- >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c >>> index 60aaba5808a5..bf2876cbd711 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/guest_memfd_test.c >>> @@ -401,13 +401,31 @@ static void test_with_type(unsigned long vm_type, uint64_t guest_memfd_flags, >>> kvm_vm_release(vm); >>> } >>> >>> +static void test_vm_with_gmem_flag(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint64_t flag, >>> + bool expect_valid) >>> +{ >>> + size_t page_size = getpagesize(); >>> + int fd; >>> + >>> + fd = __vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, page_size, flag); >>> + >>> + if (expect_valid) { >>> + TEST_ASSERT(fd > 0, >>> + "guest_memfd() with flag '0x%lx' should be valid", >>> + flag); >>> + close(fd); >>> + } else { >>> + TEST_ASSERT(fd == -1 && errno == EINVAL, >>> + "guest_memfd() with flag '0x%lx' should fail with EINVAL", >>> + flag); >>> + } >>> +} >>> + >>> static void test_vm_type_gmem_flag_validity(unsigned long vm_type, >>> uint64_t expected_valid_flags) >>> { >>> - size_t page_size = getpagesize(); >>> struct kvm_vm *vm; >>> uint64_t flag = 0; >>> - int fd; >>> >>> if (!(kvm_check_cap(KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES) & BIT(vm_type))) >>> return; >>> @@ -415,17 +433,11 @@ static void test_vm_type_gmem_flag_validity(unsigned long vm_type, >>> vm = vm_create_barebones_type(vm_type); >>> >>> for (flag = BIT(0); flag; flag <<= 1) { >>> - fd = __vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, page_size, flag); >>> + test_vm_with_gmem_flag(vm, flag, flag & expected_valid_flags); >>> >>> - if (flag & expected_valid_flags) { >>> - TEST_ASSERT(fd > 0, >>> - "guest_memfd() with flag '0x%lx' should be valid", >>> - flag); >>> - close(fd); >>> - } else { >>> - TEST_ASSERT(fd == -1 && errno == EINVAL, >>> - "guest_memfd() with flag '0x%lx' should fail with EINVAL", >>> - flag); >>> + if (flag == GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED) { >>> + test_vm_with_gmem_flag( >>> + vm, flag | GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE, true); >> I don't understand the point of this check. In 2/51 we set >> GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE when GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED is set. >> >> When can this check ever fail? >> >> Ira > In 02/51, GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE is not set by default, > GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE is set as one of the valid_flags. > > The intention is that GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE is only valid if > GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED is requested by userspace. > > In this test, the earlier part before the if block calls > test_vm_with_gmem_flag() all valid flags, and that already tests > GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED individually. > > Specifically if GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED is set, this if block > adds a test for when both GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_SUPPORT_SHARED and > GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_INIT_PRIVATE are set, and sets that expect_valid is > true. Maybe it's more clear to move this case out of the loop? > > This second test doesn't fail, it is meant to check that the kernel > allows the pair of flags to be set. Hope that makes sense.