On 11/11/2025 4:56 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> It makes more semantic sense for these tests to be in close proximity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
> ---
> x86/svm_tests.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/x86/svm_tests.c b/x86/svm_tests.c
> index e911659194b3d..feeb27d61435b 100644
> --- a/x86/svm_tests.c
> +++ b/x86/svm_tests.c
> @@ -112,6 +112,35 @@ static bool finished_rsm_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> return get_test_stage(test) == 2;
> }
>
> +static void prepare_sel_cr0_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> +{
> + vmcb->save.cr0 &= ~X86_CR0_CD;
> + vmcb->control.intercept |= (1ULL << INTERCEPT_SELECTIVE_CR0);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_sel_cr0_write_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> +{
> + unsigned long cr0;
> +
> + /* read cr0, set CD, and write back */
> + cr0 = read_cr0();
> + cr0 |= X86_CR0_CD;
> + write_cr0(cr0);
> +
> + /*
> + * If we are here the test failed, not sure what to do now because we
> + * are not in guest-mode anymore so we can't trigger an intercept.
> + * Trigger a tripple-fault for now.
> + */
> + report_fail("sel_cr0 test. Can not recover from this - exiting");
> + exit(report_summary());
> +}
> +
> +static bool check_sel_cr0_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> +{
> + return vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_CR0_SEL_WRITE;
> +}
> +
> static void prepare_cr3_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> {
> default_prepare(test);
> @@ -793,35 +822,6 @@ static bool check_asid_zero(struct svm_test *test)
> return vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_ERR;
> }
>
> -static void prepare_sel_cr0_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> -{
> - vmcb->save.cr0 &= ~X86_CR0_CD;
> - vmcb->control.intercept |= (1ULL << INTERCEPT_SELECTIVE_CR0);
> -}
> -
> -static void test_sel_cr0_write_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> -{
> - unsigned long cr0;
> -
> - /* read cr0, set CD, and write back */
> - cr0 = read_cr0();
> - cr0 |= X86_CR0_CD;
> - write_cr0(cr0);
> -
> - /*
> - * If we are here the test failed, not sure what to do now because we
> - * are not in guest-mode anymore so we can't trigger an intercept.
> - * Trigger a tripple-fault for now.
> - */
> - report_fail("sel_cr0 test. Can not recover from this - exiting");
> - exit(report_summary());
> -}
> -
> -static bool check_sel_cr0_intercept(struct svm_test *test)
> -{
> - return vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_CR0_SEL_WRITE;
> -}
> -
> #define TSC_ADJUST_VALUE (1ll << 32)
> #define TSC_OFFSET_VALUE (~0ull << 48)
> static bool ok;
> @@ -3458,6 +3458,9 @@ struct svm_test svm_tests[] = {
> { "rsm", default_supported,
> prepare_rsm_intercept, default_prepare_gif_clear,
> test_rsm_intercept, finished_rsm_intercept, check_rsm_intercept },
> + { "sel cr0 write intercept", default_supported,
> + prepare_sel_cr0_intercept, default_prepare_gif_clear,
> + test_sel_cr0_write_intercept, default_finished, check_sel_cr0_intercept},
> { "cr3 read intercept", default_supported,
> prepare_cr3_intercept, default_prepare_gif_clear,
> test_cr3_intercept, default_finished, check_cr3_intercept },
> @@ -3482,9 +3485,6 @@ struct svm_test svm_tests[] = {
> { "asid_zero", default_supported, prepare_asid_zero,
> default_prepare_gif_clear, test_asid_zero,
> default_finished, check_asid_zero },
> - { "sel cr0 write intercept", default_supported,
> - prepare_sel_cr0_intercept, default_prepare_gif_clear,
> - test_sel_cr0_write_intercept, default_finished, check_sel_cr0_intercept},
> { "tsc_adjust", tsc_adjust_supported, tsc_adjust_prepare,
> default_prepare_gif_clear, tsc_adjust_test,
> default_finished, tsc_adjust_check },
You might probably want to add "No functional change intended" in the
commit message, since this is just the movement of a test case.
Reviewed-by: Manali Shukla <manali.shukla@amd.com>