Test prefault memory during concurrent memslot removal.
Add a new param "remove_slot" to pre_fault_memory() to indicate testing
concurrent memslot removal. When "remove_slot" is set:
Create a remove_thread which deletes the test slot concurrently while the
main thread is executing ioctl KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY on the test slot memory
range.
Introduce variables "delete_thread_ready" and "prefault_ready" to
synchronize the slot removal and ioctl KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY. When the
concurrency is achieved, ioctl KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY should return the error
EAGAIN. Otherwise, the ioctl should succeed as in cases where remove_slot
is not set.
Retry ioctl KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY upon receiving EAGAIN. Since the memslot
should have been successfully removed during the retry, EFAULT or ENOENT
should be returned depending on whether the prefault is for private or
shared memory.
Split the existing "gpa" parameter in pre_fault_memory() into "base_gpa"
and "offset" to facilitate adding the test slot back to "base_gpa" after
the test concludes, ensuring that subsequent tests are not affected.
Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
---
.../selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c | 94 +++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
index 0350a8896a2f..56e65feb4c8c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
@@ -10,12 +10,16 @@
#include <test_util.h>
#include <kvm_util.h>
#include <processor.h>
+#include <pthread.h>
/* Arbitrarily chosen values */
#define TEST_SIZE (SZ_2M + PAGE_SIZE)
#define TEST_NPAGES (TEST_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE)
#define TEST_SLOT 10
+static bool prefault_ready;
+static bool delete_thread_ready;
+
static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
{
volatile uint64_t val __used;
@@ -30,17 +34,47 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
GUEST_DONE();
}
-static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
- u64 left)
+static void *remove_slot_worker(void *data)
+{
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = (struct kvm_vcpu *)data;
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, true);
+
+ while (!READ_ONCE(prefault_ready))
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ vm_mem_region_delete(vcpu->vm, TEST_SLOT);
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, false);
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
+ u64 size, u64 left, bool private, bool remove_slot)
{
struct kvm_pre_fault_memory range = {
- .gpa = gpa,
+ .gpa = base_gpa + offset,
.size = size,
.flags = 0,
};
- u64 prev;
+ pthread_t remove_thread;
+ bool remove_hit = false;
int ret, save_errno;
+ u64 prev;
+ if (remove_slot) {
+ pthread_create(&remove_thread, NULL, remove_slot_worker, vcpu);
+
+ while (!READ_ONCE(delete_thread_ready))
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(prefault_ready, true);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * EAGAIN may be returned if slot removal is performed during
+ * KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY.
+ */
do {
prev = range.size;
ret = __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, &range);
@@ -49,18 +83,42 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
"%sexpecting range.size to change on %s",
ret < 0 ? "not " : "",
ret < 0 ? "failure" : "success");
- } while (ret >= 0 ? range.size : save_errno == EINTR);
- TEST_ASSERT(range.size == left,
- "Completed with %lld bytes left, expected %" PRId64,
- range.size, left);
+ if (remove_slot && ret < 0 && save_errno == EAGAIN)
+ remove_hit = true;
+
+ } while (ret >= 0 ? range.size : ((save_errno == EINTR) || (save_errno == EAGAIN)));
- if (left == 0)
- __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(!ret, "KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", ret, vcpu->vm);
- else
- /* No memory slot causes RET_PF_EMULATE. it results in -ENOENT. */
- __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(ret && save_errno == ENOENT,
+ if (remove_slot) {
+ pthread_join(remove_thread, NULL);
+ WRITE_ONCE(prefault_ready, false);
+
+ vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vcpu->vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS,
+ base_gpa, TEST_SLOT, TEST_NPAGES,
+ private ? KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD : 0);
+ }
+
+ if (remove_hit) {
+ /*
+ * Prefault within a removed memory slot range returns
+ * - EFAULT for private memory or
+ * - ENOENT for shared memory (due to RET_PF_EMULATE).
+ */
+ __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(ret && save_errno == (private ? EFAULT : ENOENT),
"KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", ret, vcpu->vm);
+ } else {
+ TEST_ASSERT(range.size == left,
+ "Completed with %lld bytes left, expected %" PRId64,
+ range.size, left);
+
+ if (left == 0)
+ __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(!ret, "KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY",
+ ret, vcpu->vm);
+ else
+ /* No memory slot causes RET_PF_EMULATE. it results in -ENOENT. */
+ __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(ret && save_errno == ENOENT,
+ "KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", ret, vcpu->vm);
+ }
}
static void __test_pre_fault_memory(unsigned long vm_type, bool private)
@@ -97,9 +155,13 @@ static void __test_pre_fault_memory(unsigned long vm_type, bool private)
if (private)
vm_mem_set_private(vm, guest_test_phys_mem, TEST_SIZE);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, SZ_2M, 0);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
+
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, 0, SZ_2M, 0, private, true);
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, 0, SZ_2M, 0, private, false);
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE,
+ private, false);
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE,
+ private, false);
vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 1, guest_test_virt_mem);
vcpu_run(vcpu);
--
2.43.2On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> .../selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c | 94 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> index 0350a8896a2f..56e65feb4c8c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> @@ -10,12 +10,16 @@
> #include <test_util.h>
> #include <kvm_util.h>
> #include <processor.h>
> +#include <pthread.h>
>
> /* Arbitrarily chosen values */
> #define TEST_SIZE (SZ_2M + PAGE_SIZE)
> #define TEST_NPAGES (TEST_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE)
> #define TEST_SLOT 10
>
> +static bool prefault_ready;
> +static bool delete_thread_ready;
> +
> static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
> {
> volatile uint64_t val __used;
> @@ -30,17 +34,47 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
> GUEST_DONE();
> }
>
> -static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
> - u64 left)
> +static void *remove_slot_worker(void *data)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = (struct kvm_vcpu *)data;
> +
> + WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, true);
> +
> + while (!READ_ONCE(prefault_ready))
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + vm_mem_region_delete(vcpu->vm, TEST_SLOT);
> +
> + WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, false);
Rather than use global variables, which necessitates these "dances" to get things
back to the initial state, use an on-stack structure to communicate (and obviously
make sure the structure is initialized :-D).
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
> + u64 size, u64 left, bool private, bool remove_slot)
> {
> struct kvm_pre_fault_memory range = {
> - .gpa = gpa,
> + .gpa = base_gpa + offset,
> .size = size,
> .flags = 0,
> };
> - u64 prev;
> + pthread_t remove_thread;
> + bool remove_hit = false;
> int ret, save_errno;
> + u64 prev;
>
> + if (remove_slot) {
I don't see any reason to make the slot removal conditional. There are three
things we're interested in testing (so far):
1. Success
2. ENOENT due to no memslot
3. EAGAIN due to INVALID memslot
#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, or rather easier to test via separate testcases
(because writing to non-existent memory is trivial). But for #3, I don't see a
reason to make it mutually exclusive with #1 _or_ #2.
As written, it's always mutually exclusive with #2 because otherwise it would be
difficult (impossible?) to determine if KVM exited on the "right" address. But
the only reason that's true is because the test recreates the slot *after*
prefaulting, and _that_ makes #3 _conditionally_ mutually exclusive with #1,
i.e. the test doesn't validate success if the INVALID memslot race is hit.
Rather than make everything mutually exclusive, just restore the memslot and
retry prefaulting. That also gives us easy bonus coverage that doing
KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY on memory that has already been faulted in is idempotent,
i.e. that KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY succeeds if it already succeeded (and nothing
nuked the mappings in the interim).
If the memslot is restored and the loop retries, then #3 becomes a complimentary
and orthogonal testcase to #1 and #2.
This? (with an opportunistic s/left/expected_left that confused me; I thought
"left" meant how many bytes were left to prefault, but it actually means how many
bytes are expected to be left when failure occurs).
---
.../selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c | 122 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
index 0350a8896a2f..2dbabf4b0b15 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include <test_util.h>
#include <kvm_util.h>
#include <processor.h>
+#include <pthread.h>
/* Arbitrarily chosen values */
#define TEST_SIZE (SZ_2M + PAGE_SIZE)
@@ -30,18 +31,66 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
GUEST_DONE();
}
-static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
- u64 left)
+struct slot_worker_data {
+ struct kvm_vm *vm;
+ u64 gpa;
+ uint32_t flags;
+ bool worker_ready;
+ bool prefault_ready;
+ bool recreate_slot;
+};
+
+static void *delete_slot_worker(void *__data)
+{
+ struct slot_worker_data *data = __data;
+ struct kvm_vm *vm = data->vm;
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(data->worker_ready, true);
+
+ while (!READ_ONCE(data->prefault_ready))
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ vm_mem_region_delete(vm, TEST_SLOT);
+
+ while (!READ_ONCE(data->recreate_slot))
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS, data->gpa,
+ TEST_SLOT, TEST_NPAGES, data->flags);
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
+ u64 size, u64 expected_left, bool private)
{
struct kvm_pre_fault_memory range = {
- .gpa = gpa,
+ .gpa = base_gpa + offset,
.size = size,
.flags = 0,
};
- u64 prev;
+ struct slot_worker_data data = {
+ .vm = vcpu->vm,
+ .gpa = base_gpa,
+ .flags = private ? KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD : 0,
+ };
+ bool slot_recreated = false;
+ pthread_t slot_worker;
int ret, save_errno;
+ u64 prev;
- do {
+ /*
+ * Concurrently delete (and recreate) the slot to test KVM's handling
+ * of a racing memslot deletion with prefaulting.
+ */
+ pthread_create(&slot_worker, NULL, delete_slot_worker, &data);
+
+ while (!READ_ONCE(data.worker_ready))
+ cpu_relax();
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(data.prefault_ready, true);
+
+ for (;;) {
prev = range.size;
ret = __vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, &range);
save_errno = errno;
@@ -49,18 +98,56 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
"%sexpecting range.size to change on %s",
ret < 0 ? "not " : "",
ret < 0 ? "failure" : "success");
- } while (ret >= 0 ? range.size : save_errno == EINTR);
- TEST_ASSERT(range.size == left,
- "Completed with %lld bytes left, expected %" PRId64,
- range.size, left);
+ /*
+ * Immediately retry prefaulting if KVM was interrupted by an
+ * unrelated signal/event.
+ */
+ if (ret < 0 && save_errno == EINTR)
+ continue;
- if (left == 0)
- __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(!ret, "KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", ret, vcpu->vm);
+ /*
+ * Tell the worker to recreate the slot in order to complete
+ * prefaulting (if prefault didn't already succeed before the
+ * slot was deleted) and/or to prepare for the next testcase.
+ * Wait for the worker to exit so that the next invocation of
+ * prefaulting is guaranteed to complete (assuming no KVM bugs).
+ * Always retry prefaulting to simply the retry logic. Either
+ * prefaulting already succeeded, in which case retrying should
+ * also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result.
+ */
+ if (!slot_recreated) {
+ WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
+ pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
+ slot_recreated = true;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * All done if there are no remaining bytes to prefault, or if
+ * prefaulting failed (EINTR was handled above, and EAGAIN due
+ * to prefaulting a memslot that's being actively deleted should
+ * be impossible since the memslot has already been recreated).
+ */
+ if (!range.size || ret < 0)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ TEST_ASSERT(range.size == expected_left,
+ "Completed with %llu bytes left, expected %lu",
+ range.size, expected_left);
+
+ /*
+ * Assert success if prefaulting the entire range should succeed, i.e.
+ * complete with no bytes remaining. Otherwise prefaulting should have
+ * failed due to ENOENT (due to RET_PF_EMULATE for emulated MMIO when
+ * no memslot exists).
+ */
+ if (!expected_left)
+ TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(!ret, KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, ret, vcpu->vm);
else
- /* No memory slot causes RET_PF_EMULATE. it results in -ENOENT. */
- __TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(ret && save_errno == ENOENT,
- "KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY", ret, vcpu->vm);
+ TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(ret && save_errno == ENOENT,
+ KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, ret, vcpu->vm);
}
static void __test_pre_fault_memory(unsigned long vm_type, bool private)
@@ -97,9 +184,10 @@ static void __test_pre_fault_memory(unsigned long vm_type, bool private)
if (private)
vm_mem_set_private(vm, guest_test_phys_mem, TEST_SIZE);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, SZ_2M, 0);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem + SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE);
- pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem + TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
+
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, 0, SZ_2M, 0, private);
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, SZ_2M, PAGE_SIZE * 2, PAGE_SIZE, private);
+ pre_fault_memory(vcpu, guest_test_phys_mem, TEST_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, private);
vcpu_args_set(vcpu, 1, guest_test_virt_mem);
vcpu_run(vcpu);
base-commit: ecbcc2461839e848970468b44db32282e5059925
--
On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 04:47:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > .../selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c | 94 +++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> > index 0350a8896a2f..56e65feb4c8c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
> > @@ -10,12 +10,16 @@
> > #include <test_util.h>
> > #include <kvm_util.h>
> > #include <processor.h>
> > +#include <pthread.h>
> >
> > /* Arbitrarily chosen values */
> > #define TEST_SIZE (SZ_2M + PAGE_SIZE)
> > #define TEST_NPAGES (TEST_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE)
> > #define TEST_SLOT 10
> >
> > +static bool prefault_ready;
> > +static bool delete_thread_ready;
> > +
> > static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
> > {
> > volatile uint64_t val __used;
> > @@ -30,17 +34,47 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t base_gpa)
> > GUEST_DONE();
> > }
> >
> > -static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gpa, u64 size,
> > - u64 left)
> > +static void *remove_slot_worker(void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = (struct kvm_vcpu *)data;
> > +
> > + WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, true);
> > +
> > + while (!READ_ONCE(prefault_ready))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > +
> > + vm_mem_region_delete(vcpu->vm, TEST_SLOT);
> > +
> > + WRITE_ONCE(delete_thread_ready, false);
>
> Rather than use global variables, which necessitates these "dances" to get things
> back to the initial state, use an on-stack structure to communicate (and obviously
> make sure the structure is initialized :-D).
Sorry for the late reply.
Indeed, this makes the code more elegant!
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
> > + u64 size, u64 left, bool private, bool remove_slot)
> > {
> > struct kvm_pre_fault_memory range = {
> > - .gpa = gpa,
> > + .gpa = base_gpa + offset,
> > .size = size,
> > .flags = 0,
> > };
> > - u64 prev;
> > + pthread_t remove_thread;
> > + bool remove_hit = false;
> > int ret, save_errno;
> > + u64 prev;
> >
> > + if (remove_slot) {
>
> I don't see any reason to make the slot removal conditional. There are three
> things we're interested in testing (so far):
>
> 1. Success
> 2. ENOENT due to no memslot
> 3. EAGAIN due to INVALID memslot
>
> #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, or rather easier to test via separate testcases
> (because writing to non-existent memory is trivial). But for #3, I don't see a
> reason to make it mutually exclusive with #1 _or_ #2.
>
> As written, it's always mutually exclusive with #2 because otherwise it would be
> difficult (impossible?) to determine if KVM exited on the "right" address. But
> the only reason that's true is because the test recreates the slot *after*
> prefaulting, and _that_ makes #3 _conditionally_ mutually exclusive with #1,
> i.e. the test doesn't validate success if the INVALID memslot race is hit.
>
> Rather than make everything mutually exclusive, just restore the memslot and
> retry prefaulting. That also gives us easy bonus coverage that doing
> KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY on memory that has already been faulted in is idempotent,
> i.e. that KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY succeeds if it already succeeded (and nothing
> nuked the mappings in the interim).
That's a good idea.
> If the memslot is restored and the loop retries, then #3 becomes a complimentary
> and orthogonal testcase to #1 and #2.
>
> This? (with an opportunistic s/left/expected_left that confused me; I thought
> "left" meant how many bytes were left to prefault, but it actually means how many
> bytes are expected to be left when failure occurs).
Looks good to me, except for a minor bug.
> + if (!slot_recreated) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> + pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> + slot_recreated = true;
> + continue;
If delete_slot_worker() invokes vm_mem_region_delete() slowly enough due to
scheduling delays, the return value from __vcpu_ioctl() could be 0 with
range.size being 0 at this point.
What about checking range.size before continuing?
@@ -120,7 +126,8 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
slot_recreated = true;
- continue;
+ if (range.size)
+ continue;
}
Otherwise, the next __vcpu_ioctl() would return -1 with errno == EINVAL, which
will break the assertion below.
> + /*
> + * Assert success if prefaulting the entire range should succeed, i.e.
> + * complete with no bytes remaining. Otherwise prefaulting should have
> + * failed due to ENOENT (due to RET_PF_EMULATE for emulated MMIO when
> + * no memslot exists).
> + */
> + if (!expected_left)
> + TEST_ASSERT_VM_VCPU_IOCTL(!ret, KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, ret, vcpu->vm);
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 04:47:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > + if (!slot_recreated) {
> > + WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> > + pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> > + slot_recreated = true;
> > + continue;
> If delete_slot_worker() invokes vm_mem_region_delete() slowly enough due to
> scheduling delays, the return value from __vcpu_ioctl() could be 0 with
> range.size being 0 at this point.
>
> What about checking range.size before continuing?
>
> @@ -120,7 +126,8 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
> WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> slot_recreated = true;
> - continue;
> + if (range.size)
> + continue;
> }
>
>
> Otherwise, the next __vcpu_ioctl() would return -1 with errno == EINVAL, which
> will break the assertion below.
Drat, I missed that kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory() returns -EINVAL on a size of '0'
(see the wrong comment snippet "Either prefaulting already succeeded, in which
case retrying should also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result").
I'll circle back to this tomorrow. IIRC, there was a reason I didn't want to
check range.size in that path, but for the life of me I can't remember why :-/
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 04:47:23PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > + if (!slot_recreated) {
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> > > + pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> > > + slot_recreated = true;
> > > + continue;
> > If delete_slot_worker() invokes vm_mem_region_delete() slowly enough due to
> > scheduling delays, the return value from __vcpu_ioctl() could be 0 with
> > range.size being 0 at this point.
> >
> > What about checking range.size before continuing?
> >
> > @@ -120,7 +126,8 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
> > WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
> > pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
> > slot_recreated = true;
> > - continue;
> > + if (range.size)
> > + continue;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Otherwise, the next __vcpu_ioctl() would return -1 with errno == EINVAL, which
> > will break the assertion below.
>
> Drat, I missed that kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory() returns -EINVAL on a size of '0'
> (see the wrong comment snippet "Either prefaulting already succeeded, in which
> case retrying should also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result").
>
> I'll circle back to this tomorrow. IIRC, there was a reason I didn't want to
> check range.size in that path, but for the life of me I can't remember why :-/
I'm 99% certain I was worried about false passes, but after working through the
possible scenarios, I don't see any way for bailing on !range.size to result in
missing a KVM bug. So I'll post a formal patch with the below sqaushed in.
Thanks much!
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
index 2dbabf4b0b15..f04768c1d2e4 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/pre_fault_memory_test.c
@@ -112,15 +112,24 @@ static void pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 base_gpa, u64 offset,
* slot was deleted) and/or to prepare for the next testcase.
* Wait for the worker to exit so that the next invocation of
* prefaulting is guaranteed to complete (assuming no KVM bugs).
- * Always retry prefaulting to simply the retry logic. Either
- * prefaulting already succeeded, in which case retrying should
- * also succeed, or retry is needed to get a stable result.
*/
if (!slot_recreated) {
WRITE_ONCE(data.recreate_slot, true);
pthread_join(slot_worker, NULL);
slot_recreated = true;
- continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Retry prefaulting to get a stable result, i.e. to
+ * avoid seeing random EAGAIN failures. Don't retry if
+ * prefaulting already succeeded, as KVM disallows
+ * prefaulting with size=0, i.e. blindly retrying would
+ * result in test failures due to EINVAL. KVM should
+ * always return success if all bytes are prefaulted,
+ * i.e. there is no need to guard against EAGAIN being
+ * returned.
+ */
+ if (range.size)
+ continue;
}
/*
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.