Re: [RFC 3/5] selftests: KVM: SEV IOCTL test

[Sampat, Pratik Rajesh]

On 7/11/2024 10:23 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
>> +
>> +static void test_sev_launch(void *guest_code, uint32_t type, uint64_t 
>> policy)
>> +{
>> +       struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>> +       struct kvm_vm *vm;
>> +       struct ucall uc;
>> +       bool cond;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       vm = vm_sev_create_with_one_vcpu(type, guest_code, &vcpu);
>> +       ret = sev_vm_launch_start(vm, 0);
>> +       cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret;
>> +       TEST_ASSERT(cond,
>> +                   "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_START should fail, invalid policy.");
>> +
>> +       ret = sev_vm_launch_update(vm, policy);
>> +       cond = type == KVM_X86_SEV_VM ? !ret : ret;
>> +       TEST_ASSERT(cond,
>> +                   "KVM_SEV_LAUNCH_UPDATE should fail, invalid policy.");
> 
> Isn't the reason we expect all other calls to fail here because we
> have not successfully called `sev_vm_launch_start()`?
> 

Yes you're right. The idea is that none of the consequent "good" ioctl
calls should succeed if the vm_launch_start was faulty.

>> +       sev_guest_status_assert(vm, type);
>> +
>> +       ret = sev_vm_launch_measure(vm, alloca(256));
> 
> Should we free this buffer?

Sure, I should store this into a pointer and free it.

I guess this also happens within vm_sev_launch() where we should include
a free as well.

Thanks for catching this!