Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: selftests: Add test cases for unsupported PMU event filter input values

From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>
To: Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>,
	Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] KVM: selftests: Add test cases for unsupported PMU event filter input values
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:51:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230814235111.GE2257301@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230810090945.16053-5-cloudliang@tencent.com>

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:09:43PM +0800,
Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
> 
> Add test cases to verify the handling of unsupported input values for the
> PMU event filter. The tests cover unsupported "action" values, unsupported
> "flags" values, and unsupported "nevents" values. All these cases should
> return an error, as they are currently not supported by the filter.
> Furthermore, the tests also cover the case where setting non-existent
> fixed counters in the fixed bitmap does not fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>
> ---
>  .../kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c        | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> index 94f5a89aac40..8b8bfee11016 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@
>  #define MAX_FILTER_EVENTS		300
>  #define MAX_TEST_EVENTS		10
>  
> +#define PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_ACTION		(KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY + 1)
> +#define PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_FLAGS			(KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAGS_VALID_MASK << 1)
> +#define PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_NEVENTS		(MAX_FILTER_EVENTS + 1)
> +
>  /*
>   * This is how the event selector and unit mask are stored in an AMD
>   * core performance event-select register. Intel's format is similar,
> @@ -760,6 +764,8 @@ static int set_pmu_single_event_filter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, uint64_t event,
>  
>  static void test_filter_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> +	uint8_t nr_fixed_counters = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_PMU_NR_FIXED_COUNTERS);
> +	struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter f;
>  	uint64_t e = ~0ul;
>  	int r;
>  
> @@ -780,6 +786,26 @@ static void test_filter_ioctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  					KVM_PMU_EVENT_FLAG_MASKED_EVENTS,
>  					KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW);
>  	TEST_ASSERT(r == 0, "Valid PMU Event Filter is failing");
> +
> +	f = base_event_filter;
> +	f.action = PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_ACTION;
> +	r = do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(vcpu, &f);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(r, "Set invalid action is expected to fail");
> +
> +	f = base_event_filter;
> +	f.flags = PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_FLAGS;
> +	r = do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(vcpu, &f);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(r, "Set invalid flags is expected to fail");
> +
> +	f = base_event_filter;
> +	f.nevents = PMU_EVENT_FILTER_INVALID_NEVENTS;
> +	r = do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(vcpu, &f);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(r, "Exceeding the max number of filter events should fail");
> +
> +	f = base_event_filter;
> +	f.fixed_counter_bitmap = ~GENMASK_ULL(nr_fixed_counters, 0);
> +	r = do_vcpu_set_pmu_event_filter(vcpu, &f);
> +	TEST_ASSERT(!r, "Masking non-existent fixed counters should be allowed");
>  }
>  
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> -- 
> 2.39.3
> 

Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>