Add a selftest to verify reads and writes to various MSRs, from both the guest and host, and expect success/failure based on whether or not the vCPU supports the MSR according to supported CPUID. Note, this test is extremely similar to KVM-Unit-Test's "msr" test, but provides more coverage with respect to host accesses, and will be extended to provide addition testing of CPUID-based features, save/restore lists, and KVM_{G,S}ET_ONE_REG, all which are extremely difficult to validate in KUT. Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson --- tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/msrs_test.c | 267 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 268 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/msrs_test.c diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm index 66c82f51837b..1d1b77dabb36 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/kvm_clock_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/kvm_pv_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/kvm_buslock_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/monitor_mwait_test +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/msrs_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/nested_emulation_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/nested_exceptions_test TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/platform_info_test diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/msrs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/msrs_test.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..dcb429cf1440 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/msrs_test.c @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +#include + +#include + +#include "kvm_util.h" +#include "processor.h" + +/* Use HYPERVISOR for MSRs that are emulated unconditionally (as is HYPERVISOR). */ +#define X86_FEATURE_NONE X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR + +struct kvm_msr { + const struct kvm_x86_cpu_feature feature; + const char *name; + const u64 reset_val; + const u64 write_val; + const u64 rsvd_val; + const u32 index; +}; + +#define __MSR_TEST(msr, str, val, rsvd, reset, feat) \ +{ \ + .index = msr, \ + .name = str, \ + .write_val = val, \ + .rsvd_val = rsvd, \ + .reset_val = reset, \ + .feature = X86_FEATURE_ ##feat, \ +} + +#define MSR_TEST_NON_ZERO(msr, val, rsvd, reset, feat) \ + __MSR_TEST(msr, #msr, val, rsvd, reset, feat) + +#define MSR_TEST(msr, val, rsvd, feat) \ + __MSR_TEST(msr, #msr, val, rsvd, 0, feat) + +/* + * Note, use a page aligned value for the canonical value so that the value + * is compatible with MSRs that use bits 11:0 for things other than addresses. + */ +static const u64 canonical_val = 0x123456789000ull; + +#define MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(msr, feat) \ + __MSR_TEST(msr, #msr, canonical_val, NONCANONICAL, 0, feat) + +/* + * The main struct must be scoped to a function due to the use of structures to + * define features. For the global structure, allocate enough space for the + * foreseeable future without getting too ridiculous, to minimize maintenance + * costs (bumping the array size every time an MSR is added is really annoying). + */ +static struct kvm_msr msrs[128]; +static int idx; + +static u64 fixup_rdmsr_val(u32 msr, u64 want) +{ + /* AMD CPUs drop bits 63:32, and KVM is supposed to emulate that. */ + if (host_cpu_is_amd && + (msr == MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP || msr == MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP)) + want &= GENMASK_ULL(31, 0); + + return want; +} + +static void __rdmsr(u32 msr, u64 want) +{ + u64 val; + u8 vec; + + vec = rdmsr_safe(msr, &val); + __GUEST_ASSERT(!vec, "Unexpected %s on RDMSR(0x%x)", ex_str(vec), msr); + + __GUEST_ASSERT(val == want, "Wanted 0x%lx from RDMSR(0x%x), got 0x%lx", + want, msr, val); +} + +static void __wrmsr(u32 msr, u64 val) +{ + u8 vec; + + vec = wrmsr_safe(msr, val); + __GUEST_ASSERT(!vec, "Unexpected %s on WRMSR(0x%x, 0x%lx)", + ex_str(vec), msr, val); + __rdmsr(msr, fixup_rdmsr_val(msr, val)); +} + +static void guest_test_supported_msr(const struct kvm_msr *msr) +{ + __rdmsr(msr->index, msr->reset_val); + __wrmsr(msr->index, msr->write_val); + GUEST_SYNC(fixup_rdmsr_val(msr->index, msr->write_val)); + + __rdmsr(msr->index, msr->reset_val); +} + +static void guest_test_unsupported_msr(const struct kvm_msr *msr) +{ + u64 val; + u8 vec; + + vec = rdmsr_safe(msr->index, &val); + __GUEST_ASSERT(vec == GP_VECTOR, "Wanted #GP on RDMSR(0x%x), got %s", + msr->index, ex_str(vec)); + + vec = wrmsr_safe(msr->index, msr->write_val); + __GUEST_ASSERT(vec == GP_VECTOR, "Wanted #GP on WRMSR(0x%x, 0x%lx), got %s", + msr->index, msr->write_val, ex_str(vec)); + + GUEST_SYNC(0); +} + +static void guest_main(void) +{ + for (;;) { + const struct kvm_msr *msr = &msrs[READ_ONCE(idx)]; + + if (this_cpu_has(msr->feature)) + guest_test_supported_msr(msr); + else + guest_test_unsupported_msr(msr); + + /* + * Skipped the "reserved" value check if the CPU will truncate + * the written value (e.g. SYSENTER on AMD), in which case the + * upper value is simply ignored. + */ + if (msr->rsvd_val && + msr->rsvd_val == fixup_rdmsr_val(msr->index, msr->rsvd_val)) { + u8 vec = wrmsr_safe(msr->index, msr->rsvd_val); + + __GUEST_ASSERT(vec == GP_VECTOR, + "Wanted #GP on WRMSR(0x%x, 0x%lx), got %s", + msr->index, msr->rsvd_val, ex_str(vec)); + } + + GUEST_SYNC(msr->reset_val); + } +} + +static void host_test_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 guest_val) +{ + u64 reset_val = msrs[idx].reset_val; + u32 msr = msrs[idx].index; + u64 val; + + if (!kvm_cpu_has(msrs[idx].feature)) + return; + + val = vcpu_get_msr(vcpu, msr); + TEST_ASSERT(val == guest_val, "Wanted 0x%lx from get_msr(0x%x), got 0x%lx", + guest_val, msr, val); + + vcpu_set_msr(vcpu, msr, reset_val); + + val = vcpu_get_msr(vcpu, msr); + TEST_ASSERT(val == reset_val, "Wanted 0x%lx from get_msr(0x%x), got 0x%lx", + reset_val, msr, val); +} + +static void do_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + struct ucall uc; + + for (;;) { + vcpu_run(vcpu); + + switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) { + case UCALL_SYNC: + host_test_msr(vcpu, uc.args[1]); + return; + case UCALL_PRINTF: + pr_info("%s", uc.buffer); + break; + case UCALL_ABORT: + REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc); + case UCALL_DONE: + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected UCALL_DONE"); + default: + TEST_FAIL("Unexpected ucall: %lu", uc.cmd); + } + } +} + +static void __vcpus_run(struct kvm_vcpu **vcpus, const int NR_VCPUS) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < NR_VCPUS; i++) + do_vcpu_run(vcpus[i]); +} + +static void vcpus_run(struct kvm_vcpu **vcpus, const int NR_VCPUS) +{ + __vcpus_run(vcpus, NR_VCPUS); + __vcpus_run(vcpus, NR_VCPUS); +} + +#define MISC_ENABLES_RESET_VAL (MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_PEBS_UNAVAIL | MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_BTS_UNAVAIL) + +static void test_msrs(void) +{ + const struct kvm_msr __msrs[] = { + MSR_TEST_NON_ZERO(MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE, + MISC_ENABLES_RESET_VAL | MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_FAST_STRING, + MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_FAST_STRING, MISC_ENABLES_RESET_VAL, NONE), + MSR_TEST_NON_ZERO(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, 0x07070707, 0, 0x7040600070406, NONE), + + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_CS, 0x1234, 0, NONE), + /* + * SYSENTER_{ESP,EIP} are technically non-canonical on Intel, + * but KVM doesn't emulate that behavior on emulated writes, + * i.e. this test will observe different behavior if the MSR + * writes are handed by hardware vs. KVM. KVM's behavior is + * intended (though far from ideal), so don't bother testing + * non-canonical values. + */ + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_ESP, canonical_val, 0, NONE), + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_SYSENTER_EIP, canonical_val, 0, NONE), + + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_FS_BASE, LM), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_GS_BASE, LM), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, LM), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_LSTAR, LM), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_CSTAR, LM), + MSR_TEST(MSR_SYSCALL_MASK, 0xffffffff, 0, LM), + + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, canonical_val, canonical_val | 1, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP, canonical_val, canonical_val | 1, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP, canonical_val, canonical_val | 1, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST_CANONICAL(MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, SHSTK), + MSR_TEST(MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, canonical_val, canonical_val | 1, SHSTK), + }; + + /* + * Create two vCPUs, but run them on the same task, to validate KVM's + * context switching of MSR state. Don't pin the task to a pCPU to + * also validate KVM's handling of cross-pCPU migration. + */ + const int NR_VCPUS = 2; + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[NR_VCPUS]; + struct kvm_vm *vm; + + kvm_static_assert(sizeof(__msrs) <= sizeof(msrs)); + kvm_static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(__msrs) <= ARRAY_SIZE(msrs)); + memcpy(msrs, __msrs, sizeof(__msrs)); + + vm = vm_create_with_vcpus(NR_VCPUS, guest_main, vcpus); + + sync_global_to_guest(vm, msrs); + + for (idx = 0; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(__msrs); idx++) { + sync_global_to_guest(vm, idx); + + vcpus_run(vcpus, NR_VCPUS); + vcpus_run(vcpus, NR_VCPUS); + } + + kvm_vm_free(vm); +} + +int main(void) +{ + test_msrs(); +} -- 2.51.0.384.g4c02a37b29-goog