From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA01F1DE2B5 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753175898; cv=none; b=bpf+6aM/z8pSmox+XjBPgd6NF3V6m7cP0liQ9S9lCYPshqhypdRCa5cEmCWKjMWpYFdtb31QKyfOtzAU6hIVq+DhVkLt1pLhv2ZN2FIaYKsu2aFjM3I3Y/MA2wCw5Tw0GkYC4Jjm9W/lGZ0hqKKIViD9Ke3oA91IMb0OP/JKB20= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753175898; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hhQufx2HD4Ts5oBIe9054Ablz+7kZBZZDBYP7X7WX8w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bTkKaQdYmgHbQg9BYkGolacZK9xyPP4PMDpNe8/vQk1hwA/le++duDdleYnlYCj8VdKbn6q/BCex3kzaTX7g6LR8XVsk9xmT12X4iyRqw7Q4RWvCkIwgNg6oTcT80YJOnFujLZJ1WCUhvF3NHk2/JnwJRjqRqJ0kJC4+pVwTQpU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b=Fx0ixECH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b="Fx0ixECH" Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a503d9ef59so3755472f8f.3 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ventanamicro.com; s=google; t=1753175892; x=1753780692; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PHFy2ib8R7VJ1RgEKC7LoLc8P9a6wfUZ5RjA5auf7Xg=; b=Fx0ixECHumfJi5nWtnbjmk+Af60kjKKZDYiDS7KVN/ewMRwgEdsb5MoNOFHwpX/aCx UKY+/h+GP5Hj3Ifl9afnojyNnHuSvxkmpr5yx6TXD9wmoQt/zGUuEvgRvP7UQfi7My8l nINTP52B7rtB8y8yAnmlDT5HD4mloYAPq+SkSwRcobdM6uqhp5krJVKysIRWzhC/7Mk1 RcDAwX7qORZObPLsD6yz2jcbxErG66sN/MGuzzPPsua00sSpVPHQ7YMGRQbgwhZ2a2hN OadDxfk69nCfuqbY6HKmUoWmk5CBE+oZGTftm09m2cr7CmPZKwTofz1K2xfC7xzroPZe xzyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753175892; x=1753780692; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PHFy2ib8R7VJ1RgEKC7LoLc8P9a6wfUZ5RjA5auf7Xg=; b=N9zyK9AXjYeatjqVImazYd3En1CFG97F/tmc0Vi1sODlwPFXqAy8mMbGvZFz7FRvYN ZOg1xqkyr+WC/O3LAJFjBCQiHrDrEb6WTRs0vFoRSpRKYf5aBnlRinnkOeJgKdHGdMMQ eyJDSRE2korlZUal4PnGesrCQmHSxJEfW3EMVo/uHhp4fi4rxbq7JxEql16EunRpep6e D6qd6ClZj4z5Rzq0wKMdve59G7VIsahSnVaY4huw6qF1O3FPx1jTDtbrOyTY80/iGzen i7yA5Jwrkw3LoCPpcL53pAgg0vP66TTDuvCJaQP8p+DHH/6+DdgzK0ijrnkPa1AF/tKq LwgA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUC/nJIawSGarpT0tvB5cxoJHpzHf1EVdnHsA0oikpOpxN+N4Ax2Vey4lzRRJNNUctkxzWfUUMpMHUKm3U=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw1qhRnQGhtBKHA86KLfK0URqmo9wvIT3vMRD895m5hsGsex/MV ErgumkG4U8t+nSKv/nJK2IkC5VZcsX1TKpDbdZUEe3JHqTj5XOjQw/DBo+NSqTjj4qg= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctX+QHIANN9yRcf7n/6Hz2YbuNCH1LLMN/L+5XOP4st297viud66OfE3KPR4rg /nbxYKMAsI8ubAH3eI6YoCZovkMhJ87UGyrcHkKeeJCNuREdeQZ5OF+MEj0dskjDl315sRkcTcD JFfptjxOp35XwsMLY1gKGE7iHsfJM+0ETqVV1meCk3vMVqXs1C2q/FsTUEFPIYqcVvEYzzZMMkr sRWPxlJLTryJh1Tnt9HucRwrBVzDAArTDf+qLe2pcEkDNdHeBJzC//eYY5msbOu4T9FlfGNVRbr gnEvMErQ0yFlMFwlxn/AvjUecm8IbbhtUQpGVqWbp+R+Qkhgc/PmJ+zb63JyLr9d2QgcwzDISeH lIfgT55sHCw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHQBAZgY70xI+dtP0yh6yvLOKV0BlM/uTMSPEIciqVVZwMQSsJNaHFcQVjMoLC9XYi1w0Ju7g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2892:b0:3a4:f379:65bc with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b60e523efamr18492284f8f.40.1753175891891; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a02:8308:a00c:e200::f15c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-3b61ca48a2esm12946678f8f.51.2025.07.22.02.18.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 11:18:10 +0200 From: Andrew Jones To: Marc Zyngier Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , jackabt@amazon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: selftest: Add standalone test checking for KVM's own UUID Message-ID: <20250722-87ac9d7e0b27cf7c67a4fbd3@orel> References: <20250721155136.892255-1-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250721155136.892255-1-maz@kernel.org> Hi Marc, On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Tinkering with UUIDs is a perilious task, and the KVM UUID gets > broken at times. In order to spot this early enough, add a selftest > that will shout if the expected value isn't found. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250721130558.50823-1-jackabt.amazon@gmail.com > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 + > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > index ce817a975e50a..e1eb1ba238a2a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_irq > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vgic_lpi_stress > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/vpmu_counter_access > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/no-vgic-v3 > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arm64/kvm-uuid > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += access_tracking_perf_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += arch_timer > TEST_GEN_PROGS_arm64 += coalesced_io_test > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..89d9c8b182ae5 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/kvm-uuid.c > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > + > +#include "processor.h" > + > +/* > + * Do NOT redefine these constants, or try to replace them with some > + * "common" version. They are hardcoded here to detect any potential > + * breakage happening in the rest of the kernel. > + * > + * KVM UID value: 28b46fb6-2ec5-11e9-a9ca-4b564d003a74 > + */ > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 0xb66fb428U > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 0xe911c52eU > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 0x564bcaa9U > +#define ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3 0x743a004dU > + > +static void guest_code(void) > +{ > + struct arm_smccc_res res = {}; > + > + smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res); > + > + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, "a0 = %lx\n", res.a0); Should this check res.a0 == SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS instead? > + __GUEST_ASSERT(res.a0 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_0 && > + res.a1 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_1 && > + res.a2 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_2 && > + res.a3 == ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3, > + "Unexpected KVM-specific UID %lx %lx %lx %lx\n", res.a0, res.a1, res.a2, res.a3); > + GUEST_DONE(); > +} > + > +int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > + struct kvm_vm *vm; > + struct ucall uc; > + bool guest_done = false; > + > + vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, guest_code); > + > + while (!guest_done) { > + vcpu_run(vcpu); > + > + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { > + case UCALL_SYNC: > + break; > + case UCALL_DONE: > + guest_done = true; > + break; > + case UCALL_ABORT: > + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); > + break; > + case UCALL_PRINTF: > + printf("%s", uc.buffer); > + break; > + default: > + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit"); > + } > + } This is becoming a very common and useful pattern. I wonder if it's time for a ucall helper static void ucall_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void (*sync_func)(struct kvm_vcpu *, void *), void *sync_data) { bool guest_done = false; struct ucall uc; while (!guest_done) { vcpu_run(vcpu); switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { case UCALL_SYNC: if (sync_func) sync_func(vcpu, sync_data); break; case UCALL_DONE: guest_done = true; break; case UCALL_ABORT: REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); break; case UCALL_PRINTF: printf("%s", uc.buffer); break; default: TEST_FAIL("Unexpected guest exit"); } } } Thanks, drew > + > + kvm_vm_free(vm); > + > + return 0; > +} > -- > 2.39.2 >