From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="Bcay2Ih4" Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DEADD0; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3BDFND9T027050; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:49 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=hNTPoikdwEb6oOA+VqHykjaZKyLdgxvqiEq+g0mXvnA=; b=Bcay2Ih4p00UyajuRWlMmZKjgmQAbxEiQuD2fTjgXuc7PdnHyqUYWpOVFVX8OmJzNYu8 x3HBGQV/hKLs9xKwv++mCP8CKMr846dIRJlg9hqNGqWqlGffkcxi78PbIgfIX5YyMtOM 8bW8CUEYBX7AhZDwTai1pdda2aehMpv5GC9ya0Mm+0SsFGPD9RGiGewSLgsjeXSeBqdE +oESxMoOFV+0bTEGE45flMBBBczahV8VtSLpA0yHqwmLfSIr9+e32c614vVYV9uRaKvJ f3V98oJawVCjZgrDhX4KzRUI0O1/RXx7RrRs6C9XDZCZ3tb7LWDnpw/Maht0XIRlc7du Xw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uyf72b2ms-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:48 +0000 Received: from m0353725.ppops.net (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3BDGgPrk002823; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:47 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uyf72b2jq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:47 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3BDG4cWH013878; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:44 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.230]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uw5929sd1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:44 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.104]) by smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3BDH0fX133358570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:42 GMT Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05A820043; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C130720040; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p-imbrenda (unknown [9.152.224.66]) by smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:00:33 +0100 From: Claudio Imbrenda To: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch Cc: Nico =?UTF-8?B?QsO2aHI=?= , Janosch Frank , David Hildenbrand , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Jones , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 5/5] s390x: Add test for STFLE interpretive execution (format-0) Message-ID: <20231213180033.54516bdd@p-imbrenda> In-Reply-To: <20231213124942.604109-6-nsg@linux.ibm.com> References: <20231213124942.604109-1-nsg@linux.ibm.com> <20231213124942.604109-6-nsg@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: lDwjlNG91U_8fU0YMzihknB93SPAe1B3 X-Proofpoint-GUID: o1kTSGK_bC_RgErfPTfEsE6CHBlrsSwB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.997,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-12-13_09,2023-12-13_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2312130119 On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:49:42 +0100 Nina Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > The STFLE instruction indicates installed facilities. > SIE can interpretively execute STFLE. > Use a snippet guest executing STFLE to get the result of > interpretive execution and check the result. > > Signed-off-by: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch [...] > static inline void setup_facilities(void) > diff --git a/s390x/snippets/c/stfle.c b/s390x/snippets/c/stfle.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..eb024a6a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/s390x/snippets/c/stfle.c > @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > +/* > + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2023 > + * > + * Snippet used by the STLFE interpretive execution facilities test. > + */ > +#include > +#include > + > +int main(void) > +{ > + const unsigned int max_fac_len = 8; why 8? > + uint64_t res[max_fac_len + 1]; > + > + res[0] = max_fac_len - 1; > + asm volatile ( "lg 0,%[len]\n" > + " stfle %[fac]\n" > + " stg 0,%[len]\n" > + : [fac] "=QS"(*(uint64_t(*)[max_fac_len])&res[1]), > + [len] "+RT"(res[0]) > + : > + : "%r0", "cc" > + ); > + force_exit_value((uint64_t)&res); > + return 0; > +} > diff --git a/s390x/stfle-sie.c b/s390x/stfle-sie.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..574319ed > --- /dev/null > +++ b/s390x/stfle-sie.c > @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > +/* > + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2023 > + * > + * SIE with STLFE interpretive execution facilities test. > + */ > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > + > +static struct vm vm; > +static uint64_t (*fac)[PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)]; > +static rand_state rand_s; > + > +static void setup_guest(void) > +{ > + extern const char SNIPPET_NAME_START(c, stfle)[]; > + extern const char SNIPPET_NAME_END(c, stfle)[]; > + > + setup_vm(); > + fac = alloc_pages_flags(0, AREA_DMA31); > + > + snippet_setup_guest(&vm, false); > + snippet_init(&vm, SNIPPET_NAME_START(c, stfle), > + SNIPPET_LEN(c, stfle), SNIPPET_UNPACK_OFF); > +} > + > +struct guest_stfle_res { > + uint16_t len; > + uint64_t reg; > + unsigned char *mem; > +}; > + > +static struct guest_stfle_res run_guest(void) > +{ > + struct guest_stfle_res res; > + uint64_t guest_stfle_addr; > + > + sie(&vm); > + assert(snippet_get_force_exit_value(&vm, &guest_stfle_addr)); > + res.mem = &vm.guest_mem[guest_stfle_addr]; > + memcpy(&res.reg, res.mem, sizeof(res.reg)); > + res.len = (res.reg & 0xff) + 1; > + res.mem += sizeof(res.reg); > + return res; > +} > + > +static void test_stfle_format_0(void) > +{ > + struct guest_stfle_res res; > + > + report_prefix_push("format-0"); > + for (int j = 0; j < stfle_size(); j++) > + WRITE_ONCE((*fac)[j], rand64(&rand_s)); do you really need random numbers? can't you use a static pattern? maybe something like 0x0001020304050607 etc... > + vm.sblk->fac = (uint32_t)(uint64_t)fac; > + res = run_guest(); > + report(res.len == stfle_size(), "stfle len correct"); > + report(!memcmp(*fac, res.mem, res.len * sizeof(uint64_t)), > + "Guest facility list as specified"); it seems like you are comparing the full facility list (stfle_size doublewords long) with the result of STFLE in the guest, but the guest is limited to 8 double words? > + report_prefix_pop(); > +} > + > +struct args { > + uint64_t seed; > +}; > + > +static bool parse_uint64_t(const char *arg, uint64_t *out) > +{ > + char *end; > + uint64_t num; > + > + if (arg[0] == '\0') > + return false; > + num = strtoul(arg, &end, 0); > + if (end[0] != '\0') > + return false; > + *out = num; > + return true; > +} > + > +static struct args parse_args(int argc, char **argv) > +{ > + struct args args; > + const char *flag; > + unsigned int i; > + uint64_t arg; > + bool has_arg; > + > + stck(&args.seed); > + > + for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) { > + if (i + 1 < argc) > + has_arg = parse_uint64_t(argv[i + 1], &arg); > + else > + has_arg = false; > + > + flag = "--seed"; > + if (!strcmp(flag, argv[i])) { > + if (!has_arg) > + report_abort("%s needs an uint64_t parameter", flag); > + args.seed = arg; > + ++i; > + continue; > + } > + report_abort("Unsupported parameter '%s'", > + argv[i]); > + } > + > + return args; > +} this is lots of repeated code in all tests, I should really resurrect and polish my patchseries for argument parsing > + > +int main(int argc, char **argv) > +{ > + struct args args = parse_args(argc, argv); > + > + if (!sclp_facilities.has_sief2) { > + report_skip("SIEF2 facility unavailable"); > + goto out; > + } > + > + report_info("pseudo rand seed: 0x%lx", args.seed); > + rand_s = RAND_STATE_INIT(args.seed); > + setup_guest(); > + if (test_facility(7)) > + test_stfle_format_0(); > +out: > + return report_summary(); > +}