Re: [RFC 1/5] selftests: KVM: Add a basic SNP smoke test

From: Sampat, Pratik Rajesh
Date: Thu Jul 11 2024 - 12:21:36 EST


Hi Peter,

Thank you for your review!

On 7/11/2024 10:16 AM, Peter Gonda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 4:06 PM Pratik R. Sampat
> <pratikrajesh.sampat@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Extend sev_smoke_test to also run a minimal SEV-SNP smoke test that
>> initializes and sets up private memory regions required to run a simple
>> SEV-SNP guest.
>>
>> Similar to it's SEV-ES smoke test counterpart, this also does not support
>> GHCB and ucall yet and uses the GHCB MSR protocol to trigger an exit of
>> the type KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT.
>>
>> Also, decouple policy and type and require functions to provide both
>> such that there is no assumption regarding the type using policy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat <pratikrajesh.sampat@xxxxxxx>
>
> Tested-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
>> - test_sev(guest_sev_code, SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
>> - test_sev(guest_sev_code, 0);
>> + test_sev(guest_sev_code, KVM_X86_SEV_VM, SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
>> + test_sev(guest_sev_code, KVM_X86_SEV_VM, 0);
>>
>> if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SEV_ES)) {
>> - test_sev(guest_sev_es_code, SEV_POLICY_ES | SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
>> - test_sev(guest_sev_es_code, SEV_POLICY_ES);
>> + test_sev(guest_sev_es_code, KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, SEV_POLICY_ES | SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
>> + test_sev(guest_sev_es_code, KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, SEV_POLICY_ES);
>> +
>> + if (kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_XCRS) &&
>> + (xgetbv(0) & XFEATURE_MASK_X87_AVX) == XFEATURE_MASK_X87_AVX) {
>> + test_sync_vmsa(KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, SEV_POLICY_ES);
>> + test_sync_vmsa(KVM_X86_SEV_ES_VM, SEV_POLICY_ES | SEV_POLICY_NO_DBG);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SNP) && is_kvm_snp_supported()) {
>> + test_sev(guest_snp_code, KVM_X86_SNP_VM, SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO);
>
> I'd guess most systems have SMT enabled, but is there a way we can
> check and toggle the SNP_POLICY_SMT policy bit programmatically?
>

We could do that by making a check to /sys/devices/system/cpu/smt/active
maybe?

> Also should we have a base SNP policy so we don't have to read
> `SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO` every time? Not sure I think
> selftests prefer more verbosity.

Sure, that makes sense. I can also include the following to save us a
few keystrokes and help read easier.
#define SNP_POLICY SNP_POLICY_SMT | SNP_POLICY_RSVD_MBO

Thanks!
Pratik