From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@google.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>,
Ryan Afranji <afranji@google.com>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
"Roger Wang" <runanwang@google.com>,
Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@linux.intel.com>,
"Oliver Upton" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
"Pratik R. Sampat" <pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 28/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX UPM selftest
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:05:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <689cb7b077704_20a6d929455@iweiny-mobl.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250807201628.1185915-29-sagis@google.com>
Sagi Shahar wrote:
> From: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
NIT: UPM?
Also for consistency with the next patch:
"KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX UPM selftests for explicit conversion"
>
> This tests the use of guest memory with explicit TDG.VP.VMCALL<MapGPA>
> calls.
>
[snip]
> +
> +/*
> + * 0x80000000 is arbitrarily selected. The selected address need not be the same
> + * as TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE, but it should not overlap with selftest
> + * code or boot page.
> + */
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GPA (0x80000000)
> +/* Test area GPA is arbitrarily selected */
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE (0x90000000)
> +/* Select any bit that can be used as a flag */
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED_BIT (32)
> +/*
> + * TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED is used to map the same GPA twice into the
> + * guest, once as shared and once as private
> + */
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED \
> + (TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE | \
> + BIT_ULL(TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED_BIT))
> +
> +/* The test area is 2MB in size */
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_SIZE SZ_2M
> +/* 0th general area is 1MB in size */
> +#define TDX_UPM_GENERAL_AREA_0_SIZE SZ_1M
> +/* Focus area is 40KB in size */
> +#define TDX_UPM_FOCUS_AREA_SIZE (SZ_32K + SZ_8K)
> +/* 1st general area is the rest of the space in the test area */
> +#define TDX_UPM_GENERAL_AREA_1_SIZE \
> + (TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_SIZE - TDX_UPM_GENERAL_AREA_0_SIZE - \
> + TDX_UPM_FOCUS_AREA_SIZE)
> +
> +/*
> + * The test memory area is set up as two general areas, sandwiching a focus
> + * area. The general areas act as control areas. After they are filled, they
> + * are not expected to change throughout the tests. The focus area is memory
> + * permissions change from private to shared and vice-versa.
> + *
> + * The focus area is intentionally small, and sandwiched to test that when the
> + * focus area's permissions change, the other areas' permissions are not
> + * affected.
> + */
> +struct __packed tdx_upm_test_area {
> + uint8_t general_area_0[TDX_UPM_GENERAL_AREA_0_SIZE];
> + uint8_t focus_area[TDX_UPM_FOCUS_AREA_SIZE];
> + uint8_t general_area_1[TDX_UPM_GENERAL_AREA_1_SIZE];
> +};
Is this really needed with the defines and helpers you have?
> +
> +static void fill_test_area(struct tdx_upm_test_area *test_area_base,
> + uint8_t pattern)
> +{
> + memset(test_area_base, pattern, sizeof(*test_area_base));
> +}
> +
> +static void fill_focus_area(struct tdx_upm_test_area *test_area_base,
> + uint8_t pattern)
> +{
> + memset(test_area_base->focus_area, pattern,
> + sizeof(test_area_base->focus_area));
> +}
> +
> +static bool check_area(uint8_t *base, uint64_t size, uint8_t expected_pattern)
memchr_inv()?
> +{
> + size_t i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> + if (base[i] != expected_pattern)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
[snip]
> +
> +
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_ASSERT(x) \
> + do { \
> + if (!(x)) \
> + tdx_test_fatal(__LINE__); \
I think Sean mentioned he did not want to use the tdx_* error functions.
And why is a special assert needed for this test only?
> + } while (0)
> +
> +/*
> + * Shared variables between guest and host
> + */
> +static struct tdx_upm_test_area *test_area_gpa_private;
> +static struct tdx_upm_test_area *test_area_gpa_shared;
> +
> +/*
> + * Test stages for syncing with host
> + */
> +enum {
> + SYNC_CHECK_READ_PRIVATE_MEMORY_FROM_HOST = 1,
> + SYNC_CHECK_READ_SHARED_MEMORY_FROM_HOST,
> + SYNC_CHECK_READ_PRIVATE_MEMORY_FROM_HOST_AGAIN,
> +};
I don't follow what these are used for. It seems like a synchronization
mechanism between the guest and host test code? But I don't see any state
machine which is transitioning from 1 stage to the next.
Ah I think I see it now. These are not the test stages. Rather they are
the return values that the guess is sending to the host to signal
completion of each stage.
> +
> +#define TDX_UPM_TEST_ACCEPT_PRINT_PORT 0x87
> +
> +/*
> + * Does vcpu_run, and also manages memory conversions if requested by the TD.
NIT: "vcpu_run; also manages memory conversions if requested by the TD."
> + */
> +void vcpu_run_and_manage_memory_conversions(struct kvm_vm *vm,
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + for (;;) {
> + vcpu_run(vcpu);
> + if (vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL &&
> + vcpu->run->hypercall.nr == KVM_HC_MAP_GPA_RANGE) {
> + uint64_t gpa = vcpu->run->hypercall.args[0];
> +
> + handle_memory_conversion(vm, vcpu->id, gpa,
> + vcpu->run->hypercall.args[1] << 12,
> + vcpu->run->hypercall.args[2] &
> + KVM_MAP_GPA_RANGE_ENCRYPTED);
> + vcpu->run->hypercall.ret = 0;
> + continue;
> + } else if (vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_IO &&
> + vcpu->run->io.port == TDX_UPM_TEST_ACCEPT_PRINT_PORT) {
> + uint64_t gpa = tdx_test_read_64bit(vcpu,
> + TDX_UPM_TEST_ACCEPT_PRINT_PORT);
> +
> + printf("\t ... guest accepting 1 page at GPA: 0x%lx\n",
> + gpa);
> + continue;
> + } else if (vcpu->run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT) {
> + TEST_FAIL("Guest reported error. error code: %lld (0x%llx)\n",
> + vcpu->run->system_event.data[12],
> + vcpu->run->system_event.data[13]);
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> +}
> +
[snip]
> +
> +static void verify_upm_test(void)
> +{
> + struct tdx_upm_test_area *test_area_base_hva;
> + vm_vaddr_t test_area_gva_private;
> + uint64_t test_area_npages;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> +
> + vm = td_create();
> + td_initialize(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, 0);
> + vcpu = td_vcpu_add(vm, 0, guest_upm_explicit);
> +
> + vm_install_exception_handler(vm, VE_VECTOR, guest_ve_handler);
> +
> + /*
> + * Set up shared memory page for testing by first allocating as private
> + * and then mapping the same GPA again as shared. This way, the TD does
> + * not have to remap its page tables at runtime.
> + */
> + test_area_npages = TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_SIZE / vm->page_size;
> + vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm,
> + VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GPA,
> + 3, test_area_npages, KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD);
> + vm->memslots[MEM_REGION_TEST_DATA] = 3;
I find it odd that one has to 'know' that slot 3 is the next one and that
it is just a magic number here based off of what td_initialize() did.
Sean already mentioned not defining MEM_REGION_TDX_BOOT_PARAMS. Perhaps
this could be made more dynamic when that change is implemented?
> +
> + test_area_gva_private = vm_vaddr_alloc_private(vm, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_SIZE,
> + TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE,
> + TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GPA,
> + MEM_REGION_TEST_DATA);
> + TEST_ASSERT_EQ(test_area_gva_private, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE);
> +
> + test_area_gpa_private = (struct tdx_upm_test_area *)
> + addr_gva2gpa(vm, test_area_gva_private);
> + virt_map_shared(vm, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED,
> + (uint64_t)test_area_gpa_private,
> + test_area_npages);
> + TEST_ASSERT_EQ(addr_gva2gpa(vm, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_SHARED),
> + (vm_paddr_t)test_area_gpa_private);
> +
> + test_area_base_hva = addr_gva2hva(vm, TDX_UPM_TEST_AREA_GVA_PRIVATE);
> +
> + TEST_ASSERT(fill_and_check(test_area_base_hva, PATTERN_CONFIDENCE_CHECK),
> + "Failed to mark memory intended as backing memory for TD shared memory");
> +
> + sync_global_to_guest(vm, test_area_gpa_private);
> + test_area_gpa_shared = (struct tdx_upm_test_area *)
> + ((uint64_t)test_area_gpa_private | vm->arch.s_bit);
> + sync_global_to_guest(vm, test_area_gpa_shared);
> +
> + td_finalize(vm);
> +
> + printf("Verifying UPM functionality: explicit MapGPA\n");
Not sure if Sean's comment regarding printf applies here.
Personally, I don't mind the noise in the output. But I am running things
by hand. I can see how having no output on success is a good thing when
running a suite of tests.
Ira
[snip]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-13 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-07 20:15 [PATCH v8 00/30] TDX KVM selftests Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:15 ` [PATCH v8 01/30] KVM: selftests: Add function to allow one-to-one GVA to GPA mappings Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 17:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 4:16 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:15 ` [PATCH v8 02/30] KVM: selftests: Expose function that sets up sregs based on VM's mode Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 18:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 4:24 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:15 ` [PATCH v8 03/30] KVM: selftests: Store initial stack address in struct kvm_vcpu Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 18:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 04/30] KVM: selftests: Add vCPU descriptor table initialization utility Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 4:29 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 05/30] KVM: selftests: Update kvm_init_vm_address_properties() for TDX Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 18:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 4:31 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 06/30] KVM: selftests: Add helper functions to create TDX VMs Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 20:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-12 21:05 ` Ira Weiny
2025-08-13 4:22 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-15 5:20 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-16 0:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-16 0:32 ` Reinette Chatre
2025-08-16 0:28 ` Reinette Chatre
2025-08-13 7:41 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-15 2:20 ` Chao Gao
2025-08-21 4:08 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 0:48 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-21 4:15 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 07/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Use KVM_TDX_CAPABILITIES to validate TDs' attribute configuration Sagi Shahar
2025-08-13 13:34 ` Chenyi Qiang
2025-08-20 21:18 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-20 21:49 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 08/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Update load_td_memory_region() for VM memory backed by guest memfd Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 14:19 ` Ira Weiny
2025-08-11 20:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-13 9:23 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-13 14:42 ` Reinette Chatre
2025-08-14 2:49 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 09/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX lifecycle test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-13 10:36 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-21 4:19 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 10/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add report_fatal_error test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-13 10:58 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-14 7:05 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-25 21:49 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-25 21:28 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 11/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Adding test case for TDX port IO Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 3:24 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 12/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add basic TDX CPUID test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 3:20 ` Chenyi Qiang
2025-08-14 6:11 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 13/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add basic TDG.VP.VMCALL<GetTdVmCallInfo> test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 6:34 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 14/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX IO writes test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 15/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX IO reads test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 16/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX MSR read/write tests Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 17/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX HLT exit test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 18/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX MMIO reads test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 9:58 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 19/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX MMIO writes test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 20/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX CPUID TDVMCALL test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 21/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Verify the behavior when host consumes a TD private memory Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 20:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-14 11:17 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 22/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDG.VP.INFO test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-14 9:04 ` Chenyi Qiang
2025-08-14 11:48 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 23/30] KVM: selftests: Add functions to allow mapping as shared Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 18:49 ` Ira Weiny
2025-08-15 2:37 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 24/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add shared memory test Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 21:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 25/30] KVM: selftests: KVM: selftests: Expose new vm_vaddr_alloc_private() Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 21:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 3:15 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 26/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add support for TDG.MEM.PAGE.ACCEPT Sagi Shahar
2025-08-15 5:38 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 27/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add support for TDG.VP.VEINFO.GET Sagi Shahar
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 28/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX UPM selftest Sagi Shahar
2025-08-13 16:05 ` Ira Weiny [this message]
2025-08-13 17:30 ` Reinette Chatre
2025-08-15 7:03 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 29/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add TDX UPM selftests for implicit conversion Sagi Shahar
2025-08-15 7:18 ` Binbin Wu
2025-08-07 20:16 ` [PATCH v8 30/30] KVM: selftests: TDX: Test LOG_DIRTY_PAGES flag to a non-GUEST_MEMFD memslot Sagi Shahar
2025-08-13 16:10 ` Ira Weiny
2025-08-11 17:38 ` [PATCH v8 00/30] TDX KVM selftests Sean Christopherson
2025-08-11 18:11 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2025-08-11 20:00 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-11 20:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-15 4:14 ` Sagi Shahar
2025-08-15 22:52 ` Sean Christopherson
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=689cb7b077704_20a6d929455@iweiny-mobl.notmuch \
--to=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=ackerleytng@google.com \
--cc=afranji@google.com \
--cc=ajones@ventanamicro.com \
--cc=binbin.wu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=erdemaktas@google.com \
--cc=isaku.yamahata@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pratikrajesh.sampat@amd.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=runanwang@google.com \
--cc=sagis@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).