From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62ECC4167B for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346451AbjK1Sgy (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:36:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58902 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229921AbjK1Sgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:36:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x449.google.com (mail-pf1-x449.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::449]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 865FF137 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x449.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6cbb6ff734dso6296423b3a.0 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1701196618; x=1701801418; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O91Uupu7339NvmzBM4XpIhItH5W0W9g2NalbW1uqHV0=; b=sXXfDUciz3s5t18qTXQqBPK0QRwHfDoXwAHLBU4FEbt76xy1CCyIfzYuINW0OGaZOc XPzTg0drGDNmcCFF26U3n0TA3PCX281VYHUlfgar61NIF/yexlnBqzXat2Z5osQMPHzE 8AGltxMkbm2DKUvdmyFPb10AV1JVK7oMxll17zb3i13DMt/ybgcnaH3sVfBsw47QmkNc uH47mDEfMcL/q5d7r8q7bfXf+NOlaJe/mNA1Q38Y2M+60IhIRrenlddv0U/HBxo8gi3j bbk6WaNjlp7KxifGRbbyfDWH01VDgjWZudsdj1h+2QshJnUtl7Uy7aNlRy5XbbrroEwt zG+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701196618; x=1701801418; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O91Uupu7339NvmzBM4XpIhItH5W0W9g2NalbW1uqHV0=; b=JEG9JwM2V+zrkb8k24N6101NFOpWfXU7TXnMCYZ69jrbmIolc4XjOZwfRyAXA/tYRk QT0Xnpy81YJjKJ+TyraNuoG/3TTvUGX/y1ukpqHaS8rSealHMgmM8EB89y6zNZvCkH1p yw5RiVm9rFUOG/Z8kbV44fe/C2h9wuHcqkMa0Fe9dZJC5Y9pTOR9YwNXlWD5xaDKBGPT 3/ltTs9PmdrKxjetHQcft1UY3GZGcGuzglYuHVLCLorT5SEazVnKU/iFytvJQSeV2S6g b6Te0yUZLCMKN85CFvWGtOj4zX3G3bbEvbMwuLv+QDtOR/RfwP7CwDxM+F0WNywAah6b MqwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyDAvSerQvZ8nEpj/pzKlj/kmCuKPnqLUUEw/cBGSe8A+QQSCol CU9JnbscAF4f8NKAM+opNmjfhzz/t+A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHHKYVk1YH4G56UI7cwpbQhbgUXkv7M9X5puoa7iZZH1O4DvGlAXRcA0vIVhRPQPUJ+/0kD/V/tQ/s= X-Received: from zagreus.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5c37]) (user=seanjc job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6a00:1389:b0:6cb:95ab:cf8d with SMTP id t9-20020a056a00138900b006cb95abcf8dmr4156728pfg.6.1701196618074; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:36:56 -0800 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20231107182159.404770-1-seanjc@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix MWAIT error message when guest assertion fails From: Sean Christopherson To: Maxim Levitsky Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 19, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 10:21 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Print out the test and vector as intended when a guest assert fails an > > assertion regarding MONITOR/MWAIT faulting. Unfortunately, the guest > > printf support doesn't detect such issues at compile-time, so the bug > > manifests as a confusing error message, e.g. in the most confusing case, > > the test complains that it got vector "0" instead of expected vector "0". > > > > Fixes: 0f52e4aaa614 ("KVM: selftests: Convert the MONITOR/MWAIT test to use printf guest asserts") > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > index 80aa3d8b18f8..853802641e1e 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/monitor_mwait_test.c > > @@ -27,10 +27,12 @@ do { \ > > \ > > if (fault_wanted) \ > > __GUEST_ASSERT((vector) == UD_VECTOR, \ > > - "Expected #UD on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", vector); \ > > + "Expected #UD on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", \ > > + testcase, vector); \ > > else \ > > __GUEST_ASSERT(!(vector), \ > > - "Expected success on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", vector); \ > > + "Expected success on " insn " for testcase '0x%x', got '0x%x'", \ > > + testcase, vector); \ > > } while (0) > > > > static void guest_monitor_wait(int testcase) > > > > base-commit: 45b890f7689eb0aba454fc5831d2d79763781677 > > I think that these days the gcc (and llvm likely) support printf annotations, > and usually complain, we should look at adding these to have a warning in > such cases. Huh. Well now I feel quite stupid for not realizing that's what __attribute__((__format__(printf, ...))) is for. There's even a handy dandy __printf() macro now. I'll post a v2 with the annotations and fixes for all existing violations.