On 2014-06-04 23:17, Bandan Das wrote:
> Verify that vmon fails with unaligned vmxon region or
> any bits set beyong the physical address width. Also verify
> failure with an invalid revision identifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <[email protected]>
> ---
> x86/vmx.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/x86/vmx.c b/x86/vmx.c
> index 1182eef..207eb81 100644
> --- a/x86/vmx.c
> +++ b/x86/vmx.c
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
> #include "smp.h"
> #include "io.h"
>
> -u32 *vmxon_region;
> +u64 *vmxon_region;
> struct vmcs *vmcs_root;
> u32 vpid_cnt;
> void *guest_stack, *guest_syscall_stack;
> @@ -598,13 +598,53 @@ static int test_vmx_feature_control(void)
>
> static int test_vmxon(void)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret, ret1;
> u64 rflags;
> + u64 *tmp_region = vmxon_region;
> + int width = cpuid(0x80000008).a & 0xff;
> +
> + /* Unaligned page access */
> + vmxon_region = (u64 *)((intptr_t)vmxon_region + 1);
> + rflags = read_rflags() | X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF;
> + write_rflags(rflags);
> + ret1 = vmx_on();
Can we ensure that the compiler doesn't inject any ops between
write_rflags and the vmxon that overwrite CF or ZF? If you want those
flags in a specific state, maybe it's better to pass that to vmx_on and
do this in the assembly block with vmxon.
> + report("test vmxon with unaligned vmxon region", ret1);
> + if (!ret1) {
> + ret = 1;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> + /* gpa bits beyond physical address width are set*/
> + vmxon_region = (u64 *)((intptr_t)tmp_region | ((u64)1 << (width+1)));
> + rflags = read_rflags() | X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF;
> + write_rflags(rflags);
> + ret1 = vmx_on();
> + report("test vmxon with bits set beyond physical address width", ret1);
> + if (!ret1) {
> + ret = 1;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* invalid revision indentifier */
> + vmxon_region = tmp_region;
> + *vmxon_region = 0xba9da9;
> + rflags = read_rflags() | X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF;
> + write_rflags(rflags);
> + ret1 = vmx_on();
> + report("test vmxon with invalid revision identifier", ret1);
> + if (!ret1) {
> + ret = 1;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* and finally a valid region */
> + *vmxon_region = basic.revision;
> rflags = read_rflags() | X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF;
> write_rflags(rflags);
> ret = vmx_on();
Oh, this pattern is not by you! OK, but let's address this first, then
add the new tests on top.
Jan
> - report("test vmxon", !ret);
> + report("test vmxon with valid vmxon region", !ret);
> +
> +out:
> return ret;
> }
>
>
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
