All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	marcorr@google.com, michael.roth@amd.com,
	thomas.lendacky@amd.com, joro@8bytes.org, mizhang@google.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, andrew.jones@linux.dev,
	vannapurve@google.com
Subject: Re: [V3 11/11] KVM: selftests: Add simple sev vm testing
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:22:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yv2GN1WPvi7K8LdI@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220810152033.946942-12-pgonda@google.com>

/sev_vm_launch_measurOn Wed, Aug 10, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
> index 2f7f7c741b12..b6552ea1c716 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/sev.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@
>  #define SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG	(1UL << 0)
>  #define SEV_POLICY_ES		(1UL << 2)
>  
> +#define CPUID_MEM_ENC_LEAF 0x8000001f
> +#define CPUID_EBX_CBIT_MASK 0x3f

Ha!  I was going to say "put these in processor.h", but I have an even better idea.
I'll try to a series posted tomorrow (compile tested only at this point), but what
I'm hoping to do is to allow automagic retrieval of multi-bit CPUID properties, a la
the existing this_cpu_has() stuff.

E.g.

	#define X86_PROPERTY_CBIT_LOCATION		KVM_X86_CPU_PROPERTY(0x8000001F, 0, EBX, 0, 5)

and then

	sev->enc_bit = this_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_CBIT_LOCATION);

LOL, now I see that the defines in sev.c were introduced back in patch 08.  That's
probably fine for your submission so as not to take a dependency on the "property"
idea.  This patch doesn't need to move the CPUID_* defines because it can use
this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEV) and avoid referencing CPUID_MEM_ENC_LEAF.

>  enum {
>  	SEV_GSTATE_UNINIT = 0,
>  	SEV_GSTATE_LUPDATE,
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/sev.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/sev.c
> index 3abcf50c0b5d..8f9f55c685a7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/sev.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/sev.c
> @@ -13,8 +13,6 @@
>  #include "sev.h"
>  
>  #define PAGE_SHIFT		12

Already defined in processor.h

> -#define CPUID_MEM_ENC_LEAF 0x8000001f
> -#define CPUID_EBX_CBIT_MASK 0x3f
>  
>  struct sev_vm {
>  	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_all_boot_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_all_boot_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b319d18bdb60
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/sev_all_boot_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Basic SEV boot tests.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Advanced Micro Devices
> + */
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE /* for program_invocation_short_name */
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
> +
> +#include "test_util.h"
> +
> +#include "kvm_util.h"
> +#include "processor.h"
> +#include "svm_util.h"
> +#include "linux/psp-sev.h"
> +#include "sev.h"
> +
> +#define VCPU_ID			2

Nooooooo.  Unless there is a really, REALLY good reason this needs to be '2', just
pass '0' as a literal to vm_vcpu_add() and delete VCPU_ID.

> +#define PAGE_STRIDE		32
> +
> +#define SHARED_PAGES		8192
> +#define SHARED_VADDR_MIN	0x1000000
> +
> +#define PRIVATE_PAGES		2048
> +#define PRIVATE_VADDR_MIN	(SHARED_VADDR_MIN + SHARED_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE)
> +
> +#define TOTAL_PAGES		(512 + SHARED_PAGES + PRIVATE_PAGES)
> +
> +#define NR_SYNCS 1
> +
> +static void guest_run_loop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	struct ucall uc;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i <= NR_SYNCS; ++i) {
> +		vcpu_run(vcpu);
> +		switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
> +		case UCALL_SYNC:
> +			continue;
> +		case UCALL_DONE:
> +			return;
> +		case UCALL_ABORT:
> +			TEST_ASSERT(false, "%s at %s:%ld\n\tvalues: %#lx, %#lx",
> +				    (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__,
> +				    uc.args[1], uc.args[2], uc.args[3]);
> +		default:
> +			TEST_ASSERT(
> +				false, "Unexpected exit: %s",
> +				exit_reason_str(vcpu->run->exit_reason));
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void __attribute__((__flatten__)) guest_sev_code(void)

Is __flatten__ strictly necessary?  I don't see this being copied over anything
that would require it to be a contiguous chunk.

> +{
> +	uint32_t eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> +	uint64_t sev_status;
> +
> +	GUEST_SYNC(1);
> +
> +	cpuid(CPUID_MEM_ENC_LEAF, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +	GUEST_ASSERT(eax & (1 << 1));

	GUEST_ASSERT(this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEV));
> +
> +	sev_status = rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_SEV);
> +	GUEST_ASSERT((sev_status & 0x1) == 1);
> +
> +	GUEST_DONE();
> +}
> +
> +static struct sev_vm *setup_test_common(void *guest_code, uint64_t policy,
> +					struct kvm_vcpu **vcpu)
> +{
> +	uint8_t measurement[512];
> +	struct sev_vm *sev;
> +	struct kvm_vm *vm;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	sev = sev_vm_create(policy, TOTAL_PAGES);

	TEST_ASSERT(sev, ...) so that this doesn't silently "pass"?

> +	if (!sev)
> +		return NULL;
> +	vm = sev_get_vm(sev);
> +
> +	/* Set up VCPU and initial guest kernel. */
> +	*vcpu = vm_vcpu_add(vm, VCPU_ID, guest_code);
> +	kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
> +
> +	/* Allocations/setup done. Encrypt initial guest payload. */
> +	sev_vm_launch(sev);
> +
> +	/* Dump the initial measurement. A test to actually verify it would be nice. */
> +	sev_vm_launch_measure(sev, measurement);
> +	pr_info("guest measurement: ");
> +	for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
> +		pr_info("%02x", measurement[i]);
> +	pr_info("\n");
> +
> +	sev_vm_launch_finish(sev);
> +
> +	return sev;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_sev(void *guest_code, uint64_t policy)
> +{
> +	struct sev_vm *sev;
> +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +
> +	sev = setup_test_common(guest_code, policy, &vcpu);
> +	if (!sev)
> +		return;

And with an assert above, this return goes away.  Or better yet, fold setup_test_common()
into test_sev(), there's only the one user of the so called "common" function.

> +
> +	/* Guest is ready to run. Do the tests. */
> +	guest_run_loop(vcpu);
> +
> +	pr_info("guest ran successfully\n");
> +
> +	sev_vm_free(sev);
> +}
> +
> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> +{
> +	/* SEV tests */
> +	test_sev(guest_sev_code, SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
> +	test_sev(guest_sev_code, 0);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> -- 
> 2.37.1.559.g78731f0fdb-goog
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-18  0:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-10 15:20 [V3 00/11] KVM: selftests: Add simple SEV test Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 01/11] KVM: selftests: move vm_phy_pages_alloc() earlier in file Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 02/11] KVM: selftests: sparsebit: add const where appropriate Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 03/11] KVM: selftests: add hooks for managing encrypted guest memory Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 04/11] KVM: selftests: handle encryption bits in page tables Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 05/11] KVM: selftests: add support for encrypted vm_vaddr_* allocations Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 06/11] KVM: selftests: Consolidate common code for popuplating Peter Gonda
2022-08-16 15:26   ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 07/11] KVM: selftests: Consolidate boilerplate code in get_ucall() Peter Gonda
2022-08-16 15:32   ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 08/11] KVM: selftests: add library for creating/interacting with SEV guests Peter Gonda
2022-08-18  0:33   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-29 15:45     ` Peter Gonda
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 09/11] tools: Add atomic_test_and_set_bit() Peter Gonda
2022-08-16 14:26   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 10/11] KVM: selftests: Add ucall pool based implementation Peter Gonda
2022-08-16 16:13   ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-18 16:00     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-18 19:05       ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-18 23:29         ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-19  5:17           ` Andrew Jones
2022-08-19 18:02             ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-19 20:51               ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-19 19:27   ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-08-19 19:37     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-22 23:55       ` Vishal Annapurve
2022-08-10 15:20 ` [V3 11/11] KVM: selftests: Add simple sev vm testing Peter Gonda
2022-08-18  0:22   ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-08-29 15:38     ` Peter Gonda
2022-08-18 18:43   ` Sean Christopherson

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=Yv2GN1WPvi7K8LdI@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=andrew.jones@linux.dev \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcorr@google.com \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=pgonda@google.com \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=vannapurve@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.