From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Josh Hilke <jrhilke@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] vfio: selftests: Add tests to validate SR-IOV UAPI
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 01:00:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aQvzNZU9x9gmFzH3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251104003536.3601931-5-rananta@google.com>
On 2025-11-04 12:35 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> +static const char *pf_dev_bdf;
> +static char vf_dev_bdf[16];
vf_dev_bdf can be part of the test fixture instead of a global variable.
pf_dev_bdf should be the only global variable since we have to get it
from main() into the text fixture.
> +
> +struct vfio_pci_device *pf_device;
> +struct vfio_pci_device *vf_device;
These can be local variables in the places they are used.
> +
> +static void test_vfio_pci_container_setup(struct vfio_pci_device *device,
> + const char *bdf,
> + const char *vf_token)
> +{
> + vfio_container_open(device);
> + vfio_pci_group_setup(device, bdf);
> + vfio_container_set_iommu(device);
> + __vfio_container_get_device_fd(device, bdf, vf_token);
> +}
> +
> +static int test_vfio_pci_iommufd_setup(struct vfio_pci_device *device,
> + const char *bdf, const char *vf_token)
> +{
> + vfio_pci_iommufd_cdev_open(device, bdf);
> + vfio_pci_iommufd_iommudev_open(device);
> + return __vfio_device_bind_iommufd(device->fd, device->iommufd, vf_token);
> +}
> +
> +static struct vfio_pci_device *test_vfio_pci_device_init(const char *bdf,
> + const char *iommu_mode,
> + const char *vf_token,
> + int *out_ret)
> +{
> + struct vfio_pci_device *device;
> +
> + device = calloc(1, sizeof(*device));
> + VFIO_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(device);
> +
> + device->iommu_mode = lookup_iommu_mode(iommu_mode);
> +
> + if (iommu_mode_container_path(iommu_mode)) {
> + test_vfio_pci_container_setup(device, bdf, vf_token);
> + /* The device fd will be -1 in case of mismatched tokens */
> + *out_ret = (device->fd < 0);
Maybe just return device->fd from test_vfio_pci_container_setup() so
this can be:
*out_ret = test_vfio_pci_container_setup(device, bdf, vf_token);
and then you can drop the curly braces.
> + } else {
> + *out_ret = test_vfio_pci_iommufd_setup(device, bdf, vf_token);
> + }
> +
> + return device;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_vfio_pci_device_cleanup(struct vfio_pci_device *device)
> +{
> + if (device->fd > 0)
> + VFIO_ASSERT_EQ(close(device->fd), 0);
> +
> + if (device->iommufd) {
> + VFIO_ASSERT_EQ(close(device->iommufd), 0);
> + } else {
> + VFIO_ASSERT_EQ(close(device->group_fd), 0);
> + VFIO_ASSERT_EQ(close(device->container_fd), 0);
> + }
> +
> + free(device);
> +}
> +
> +FIXTURE(vfio_pci_sriov_uapi_test) {};
> +
> +FIXTURE_SETUP(vfio_pci_sriov_uapi_test)
> +{
> + char vf_path[PATH_MAX] = {0};
> + char path[PATH_MAX] = {0};
> + unsigned int nr_vfs;
> + char buf[32] = {0};
> + int ret;
> + int fd;
> +
> + /* Check if SR-IOV is supported by the device */
> + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s/sriov_totalvfs", PCI_SYSFS_PATH, pf_dev_bdf);
nit: Personally I would just hard-code the sysfs path instead of using
PCI_SYSFS_PATH. I think the code is more readable and more succinct that
way. And sysfs should be a stable ABI.
> + fd = open(path, O_RDONLY);
> + if (fd < 0) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "SR-IOV may not be supported by the device\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
Use SKIP() for this:
if (fd < 0)
SKIP(return, "SR-IOV is not supported by the device\n");
Ditto below.
> + }
> +
> + ASSERT_GT(read(fd, buf, ARRAY_SIZE(buf)), 0);
> + ASSERT_EQ(close(fd), 0);
> + nr_vfs = strtoul(buf, NULL, 0);
> + if (nr_vfs < 0) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "SR-IOV may not be supported by the device\n");
> + exit(KSFT_SKIP);
> + }
> +
> + /* Setup VFs, if already not done */
Before creating VFs, should we disable auto-probing so the VFs don't get
bound to some other random driver (write 0 to sriov_drivers_autoprobe)?
> + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s/sriov_numvfs", PCI_SYSFS_PATH, pf_dev_bdf);
> + ASSERT_GT(fd = open(path, O_RDWR), 0);
> + ASSERT_GT(read(fd, buf, ARRAY_SIZE(buf)), 0);
> + nr_vfs = strtoul(buf, NULL, 0);
> + if (nr_vfs == 0)
If VFs are already enabled, shouldn't the test fail or skip?
> + ASSERT_EQ(write(fd, "1", 1), 1);
> + ASSERT_EQ(close(fd), 0);
> +
> + /* Get the BDF of the first VF */
> + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s/virtfn0", PCI_SYSFS_PATH, pf_dev_bdf);
> + ret = readlink(path, vf_path, PATH_MAX);
> + ASSERT_NE(ret, -1);
> + ret = sscanf(basename(vf_path), "%s", vf_dev_bdf);
> + ASSERT_EQ(ret, 1);
What ensures the created VF is bound to vfio-pci?
> +}
> +
> +FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(vfio_pci_sriov_uapi_test)
> +{
> +}
FIXTURE_TEARDOWN() should undo what FIXTURE_SETUP() did, i.e. write 0 to
sriov_numvfs. Otherwise running this test will leave behind SR-IOV
enabled on the PF.
You could also make this the users problem (the user has to provide a PF
with 1 VF where both PF and VF are bound to vfio-pci). But I think it
would be nice to make the test work automatically given a PF if we can.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-06 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-04 0:35 [PATCH 0/4] vfio: selftest: Add SR-IOV UAPI test Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-04 0:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] vfio: selftests: Add support for passing vf_token in device init Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-05 23:52 ` David Matlack
2025-11-06 0:12 ` David Matlack
2025-11-06 16:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 16:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 17:17 ` David Matlack
2025-11-07 2:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 0:14 ` David Matlack
2025-11-06 16:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 17:10 ` David Matlack
2025-11-04 0:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] vfio: selftests: Export vfio_pci_device functions Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 0:41 ` David Matlack
2025-11-06 16:43 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 17:08 ` David Matlack
2025-11-04 0:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] vfio: selftests: Add helper to set/override a vf_token Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 0:01 ` David Matlack
2025-11-06 16:44 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-04 0:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] vfio: selftests: Add tests to validate SR-IOV UAPI Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 1:00 ` David Matlack [this message]
2025-11-06 17:05 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2025-11-06 17:34 ` David Matlack
2025-11-07 2:56 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
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=aQvzNZU9x9gmFzH3@google.com \
--to=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=alex@shazbot.org \
--cc=jrhilke@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rananta@google.com \
/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