Currently when set_id_regs encounters a problem checking validation of writes to feature registers it uses an immediately fatal assert to report the problem. This is not idiomatic for kselftest, and it is also not great for usability. The affected bitfield is not clearly reported and further tests do not have their results reported. Switch to using standard kselftest result reporting for the asserts we do, these are non-fatal asserts so allow the program to continue and the test names include the affected field. Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) Signed-off-by: Mark Brown --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c index 3aa8886e8b70..43dd9506036c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/set_id_regs.c @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, u8 shift = ftr_bits->shift; u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; u64 val, new_val, ftr; + bool match; val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; @@ -434,7 +435,10 @@ static u64 test_reg_set_success(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, reg, val); new_val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(new_val, val); + match = new_val == val; + if (!match) + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", new_val, val); + ksft_test_result(match, "%s valid write succeeded\n", ftr_bits->name); return new_val; } @@ -446,6 +450,7 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, u64 mask = ftr_bits->mask; u64 val, old_val, ftr; int r; + bool match; val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); ftr = (val & mask) >> shift; @@ -458,11 +463,19 @@ static void test_reg_set_fail(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg, val |= ftr; r = __vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, reg, val); - TEST_ASSERT(r < 0 && errno == EINVAL, - "Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d", r, errno); + if (r >= 0 || errno != EINVAL) { + ksft_print_msg("Unexpected KVM_SET_ONE_REG error: r=%d, errno=%d (%s)\n", + r, errno, strerror(errno)); + ksft_test_result_fail("%s invalid write rejected\n", + ftr_bits->name); + return; + } val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, reg); - TEST_ASSERT_EQ(val, old_val); + match = val == old_val; + if (!match) + ksft_print_msg("%lx != %lx\n", val, old_val); + ksft_test_result(match, "%s invalid write rejected\n", ftr_bits->name); } static u64 test_reg_vals[KVM_ARM_FEATURE_ID_RANGE_SIZE]; @@ -502,7 +515,11 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) for (int j = 0; ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) { /* Skip aarch32 reg on aarch64 only system, since they are RAZ/WI. */ if (aarch64_only && sys_reg_CRm(reg_id) < 4) { - ksft_test_result_skip("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", + ksft_print_msg("%s on AARCH64 only system\n", + ftr_bits[j].name); + ksft_test_result_skip("%s invalid write rejected\n", + ftr_bits[j].name); + ksft_test_result_skip("%s valid write succeeded\n", ftr_bits[j].name); continue; } @@ -514,8 +531,6 @@ static void test_vm_ftr_id_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool aarch64_only) test_reg_vals[idx] = test_reg_set_success(vcpu, reg, &ftr_bits[j]); - - ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", ftr_bits[j].name); } } } @@ -882,7 +897,7 @@ int main(void) ID_REG_RESET_UNCHANGED_TEST; for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_regs); i++) for (j = 0; test_regs[i].ftr_bits[j].type != FTR_END; j++) - test_cnt++; + test_cnt += 2; ksft_set_plan(test_cnt); -- 2.47.3