.../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Currently the private_mem_conversions_test crashes if invoked with the
-n <num_vcpus> option without also specifying multiple memslots via -m.
This is because the current implementation assumes -m is specified and
always sets up the per-vCPU memory with a dedicated memslot for each
vCPU. When -m is not specified, the test skips setting up
memslots/memory for secondary vCPUs.
The current code does seem to try to handle using a single memslot for
multiple vCPUs in some places, e.g. the call-site, but
test_mem_conversions() is missing the important bit of sizing the single
memslot appropriately to handle all the per-vCPU memory. Implement that
handling.
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
---
.../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
index c04e7d61a585..5eb693fead33 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
@@ -388,10 +388,14 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
gmem_flags = 0;
memfd = vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, memfd_size, gmem_flags);
- for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
- vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
- BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
- KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
+ if (nr_memslots == 1)
+ vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA, BASE_DATA_SLOT,
+ memfd_size / vm->page_size, KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, 0);
+ else
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
+ vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
+ BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
+ KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
for (i = 0; i < nr_vcpus; i++) {
uint64_t gpa = BASE_DATA_GPA + i * size;
--
2.25.1
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> Currently the private_mem_conversions_test crashes if invoked with the
> -n <num_vcpus> option without also specifying multiple memslots via -m.
Totally a PEBKAC, not a bug ;-)
> This is because the current implementation assumes -m is specified and
> always sets up the per-vCPU memory with a dedicated memslot for each
> vCPU. When -m is not specified, the test skips setting up
> memslots/memory for secondary vCPUs.
>
> The current code does seem to try to handle using a single memslot for
> multiple vCPUs in some places, e.g. the call-site, but
> test_mem_conversions() is missing the important bit of sizing the single
> memslot appropriately to handle all the per-vCPU memory. Implement that
> handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
> ---
> .../kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> index c04e7d61a585..5eb693fead33 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
> @@ -388,10 +388,14 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
> gmem_flags = 0;
> memfd = vm_create_guest_memfd(vm, memfd_size, gmem_flags);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
> - vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> - BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> - KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
> + if (nr_memslots == 1)
> + vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA, BASE_DATA_SLOT,
> + memfd_size / vm->page_size, KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, 0);
> + else
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
The if-else needs curly braces.
> + vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
> + BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
> + KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
But I think that's a moot point, because isn't it easier to do this?
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
index c04e7d61a585..c99073098f98 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c
@@ -367,6 +367,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
*/
const size_t size = align_up(PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE, get_backing_src_pagesz(src_type));
const size_t memfd_size = size * nr_vcpus;
+ const size_t slot_size = memfd_size / nr_memslots;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
pthread_t threads[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
uint64_t gmem_flags;
@@ -390,7 +391,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t
for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++)
vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i,
- BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size,
+ BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, slot_size / vm->page_size,
KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i);
for (i = 0; i < nr_vcpus; i++) {
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, Michael Roth wrote: > > + vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i, > > + BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size, > > + KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i); > > But I think that's a moot point, because isn't it easier to do this? > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c > index c04e7d61a585..c99073098f98 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/private_mem_conversions_test.c > @@ -367,6 +367,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t > */ > const size_t size = align_up(PER_CPU_DATA_SIZE, get_backing_src_pagesz(src_type)); > const size_t memfd_size = size * nr_vcpus; > + const size_t slot_size = memfd_size / nr_memslots; > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS]; > pthread_t threads[KVM_MAX_VCPUS]; > uint64_t gmem_flags; > @@ -390,7 +391,7 @@ static void test_mem_conversions(enum vm_mem_backing_src_type src_type, uint32_t > > for (i = 0; i < nr_memslots; i++) > vm_mem_add(vm, src_type, BASE_DATA_GPA + size * i, > - BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, size / vm->page_size, > + BASE_DATA_SLOT + i, slot_size / vm->page_size, > KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, memfd, size * i); This isn't quite right, the stride and offset needs to be per-memslot too. Argh, I created quite the mess by trying to take a shortcut for testing multiple memslots, i.e. by only allowing '1' or "nr_vcpus" memslots. Much of the code assumes that ranges can't be covered by multiple memslots, e.g. the UCALL_SYNC handler assumes the entire range is contiguous in the host virtual address space. And I think there's meaningful coverage we're not getting, e.g. as is I don't think we're testing KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES across multiple memslots (thankfully we seem to have gotten the KVM side of things correct). I'll post a small series to clean up the mess and let the user specify the number of memslots (with some restrictions to keep the code relatively simple).
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.