On 12/16/16 20:33 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/12/16 13:43, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
diff --git a/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c b/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
index 31f074c..ca33b3c 100644
--- a/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
+++ b/tests/vvmx/vmxon.c
@@ -28,11 +28,42 @@ static bool test_vmxon_novmxe(void)
VMXERR_FAULT, EXINFO_SYM(UD, 0), 0);
}
+static unsigned long vmxon_in_user(void)
I'd name this user_vmxon() as it is slightly shorter, but I'm not
terribly fussed.
+{
+ exinfo_t fault;
+ unsigned long ret = vmxon((uint64_t)vmxon_region, &fault);
+
+ return (ret << 32) | fault;
+}
+
+/**
+ * vmxon in CPL=3 and out of VMX operation
+ *
+ * Expect: #GP(0)
+ */
+static bool test_vmxon_in_user(void)
Similarly, test_user_vmxon()
I'll turn to shorter names.
+{
+ clear_vmcs(vmxon_region, get_vmcs_revid());
+
+ unsigned long ret = exec_user(vmxon_in_user);
+ uint8_t err = (ret >> 32) & 0xff;
+ exinfo_t fault = ret & 0xFFFFFFFF;
+
+ return handle_vmxinsn_err(__func__, err, fault,
+ VMXERR_FAULT, EXINFO_SYM(GP, 0), 0);
+}
+
bool test_vmxon(void)
{
if ( !test_vmxon_novmxe() )
return false;
Your subject says out of VMX operation, but the implementation is inside
VMX operation.
vmxon in test_vmxon_novmxe() fails if test_vmxon_novmxe() return true,
so here we are still out of VMX operation.
It would be worth testing both scenarios, as they should be
distinguished by #UD vs #GP[0].
Yes, patch 13 - 16 are for this purpose.
Thanks,
Haozhong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
