Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] KVM: selftests: Trigger L2->L1 exits stress save+restore and #PF test

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:50 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  static bool parse_args_nested(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >  {
> > >       bool nested = false;
> > > @@ -192,10 +218,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >       gva_t gva;
> > >       u64 pte;
> > >
> > > +     TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_EXCEPTION_PAYLOAD));
> >
> > But KVM_CAP_EXCEPTION_PAYLOAD _isn't_ required, it's an optional feature.  Actually,
> > this is ridiculous.  The test is injecting a #UD, it doesn't have a payload.
> > Bad AI, bad.
> 
> KVM_CAP_EXCEPTION_PAYLOAD is required to inject a *pending* exception,
> which is needed as KVM won't check for interception on already
> injected exceptions. I will add a comment.

Drop the TEST_REQUIRE(), and instead only inject the pending #UD if the CAP
is supported.

> > > +
> > >       nested = parse_args_nested(argc, argv);
> > >
> > >       vm = vm_create_with_one_vcpu(&vcpu, nested ? l1_guest_code : guest_access_memory);
> > >       vm_install_exception_handler(vm, PF_VECTOR, guest_pf_handler);
> > > +     vm_enable_cap(vm, KVM_CAP_EXCEPTION_PAYLOAD, -2ul);
> >
> > -2ul?
> 
> That was actually me, not the AI. Apparently the other selftests also
> write -2ul for some reason. I was too lazy to go change them and/or
> figure out why -2ul, it didn't make any sense to me. I chose the lazy
> option and just used the same thing here.
> 
> Someone named Sean Christopherson wrote the other two, maybe we can ask him? :P

Nah, that guy's an asshole, not worth your time.

> > >       if (nested) {
> > >               TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM) || kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VMX));
> > > @@ -270,8 +299,16 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >
> > >               state = vcpu_save_state(vcpu);
> > >
> > > +             /*
> > > +              * If the vCPU is in guest mode, inject a #UD to trigger an
> > > +              * L2->L1 VM-Exit every other iteration.
> > > +              */
> > > +             if (nested && vcpu_state_is_guest_mode(state) && count % 2 == 0)
> >
> > Checking "nested" here is unnecessary.
> 
> It is, actually. Sashiko pointed out [1] that
> vcpu_state_is_guest_mode() will read uninitialized memory otherwise.
> 
> [1]https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518202514.2037078-1-yosry%40kernel.org?part=8

Oof.  That's subtle.  At the risk of true evil, what if we did:

	int inject_ud;

	/*
	 * Big comment here, explaining both the CAP dependency and the need to
	 * check for nested before querying guest state.
	 */
	inject_ud = nested && kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_EXCEPTION_PAYLOAD);


	...

	if ((i & inject_ud) && kvm_x86_state_is_guest_mode(&state)
		kvm_x86_state_inject_ud(&state);

> > > +                     vcpu_state_inject_ud(state);
> >
> > Honestly, I'd rather open code this whole thing, because this doesn't actually
> > inject a #UD.  It _prepares_ state, but doesn't send that into KVM.  E.g.
> 
> It injects a #UD into the state. The function name and parameter
> should make it clear. I prefer the helper, but I won't die on this
> hill.

I'm ok with a helper, it's the "vcpu" part that I find misleading, because the
"vcpu" namespace in selftest typically means "send this command into a vCPU ioctl".

kvm_x86_state_xxx() appears to be the standard namespace, let's go with that?