diff options
| author | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2024-03-09 19:48:35 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2024-03-09 19:48:35 +0300 |
| commit | 7d8942d8e73843de35b3737b8be50f8fef6796bb (patch) | |
| tree | 593e26864092f6829b25a1847cb5e2172ae7de53 /tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c | |
| parent | 0cbca1bf44a0b8666c91ce3438f235c6fe70fbf1 (diff) | |
| parent | 2dfd2383034421101300a3b7325cf339a182d218 (diff) | |
| download | linux-7d8942d8e73843de35b3737b8be50f8fef6796bb.tar.xz | |
Merge tag 'kvm-x86-guest_memfd_fixes-6.8' of https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux into HEAD
KVM GUEST_MEMFD fixes for 6.8:
- Make KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD mutually exclusive with KVM_MEM_READONLY to
avoid creating ABI that KVM can't sanely support.
- Update documentation for KVM_SW_PROTECTED_VM to make it abundantly
clear that such VMs are purely a development and testing vehicle, and
come with zero guarantees.
- Limit KVM_SW_PROTECTED_VM guests to the TDP MMU, as the long term plan
is to support confidential VMs with deterministic private memory (SNP
and TDX) only in the TDP MMU.
- Fix a bug in a GUEST_MEMFD negative test that resulted in false passes
when verifying that KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD memslots can't be dirty logged.
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c | 12 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c index 9d51b5691349..5f9713364693 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c @@ -517,11 +517,11 @@ static void test_create_vpmu_vm_with_pmcr_n(uint64_t pmcr_n, bool expect_fail) if (expect_fail) TEST_ASSERT(pmcr_orig == pmcr, - "PMCR.N modified by KVM to a larger value (PMCR: 0x%lx) for pmcr_n: 0x%lx\n", + "PMCR.N modified by KVM to a larger value (PMCR: 0x%lx) for pmcr_n: 0x%lx", pmcr, pmcr_n); else TEST_ASSERT(pmcr_n == get_pmcr_n(pmcr), - "Failed to update PMCR.N to %lu (received: %lu)\n", + "Failed to update PMCR.N to %lu (received: %lu)", pmcr_n, get_pmcr_n(pmcr)); } @@ -594,12 +594,12 @@ static void run_pmregs_validity_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) */ vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(set_reg_id), ®_val); TEST_ASSERT((reg_val & (~valid_counters_mask)) == 0, - "Initial read of set_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx\n", + "Initial read of set_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx", KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(set_reg_id), reg_val); vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(clr_reg_id), ®_val); TEST_ASSERT((reg_val & (~valid_counters_mask)) == 0, - "Initial read of clr_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx\n", + "Initial read of clr_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx", KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(clr_reg_id), reg_val); /* @@ -611,12 +611,12 @@ static void run_pmregs_validity_test(uint64_t pmcr_n) vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(set_reg_id), ®_val); TEST_ASSERT((reg_val & (~valid_counters_mask)) == 0, - "Read of set_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx\n", + "Read of set_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx", KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(set_reg_id), reg_val); vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(clr_reg_id), ®_val); TEST_ASSERT((reg_val & (~valid_counters_mask)) == 0, - "Read of clr_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx\n", + "Read of clr_reg: 0x%llx has unimplemented counters enabled: 0x%lx", KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(clr_reg_id), reg_val); } |