| Message ID | 20171108165422.46267-2-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tests for CCW IDA | expand |
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:54:20 +0100 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: Subject: s/ccs/css/ > Add a fake device meant for testing the correctness of our css emulation. > > What we currently have is writing a Fibonacci sequence of uint32_t to the > device via ccw write. The write is going to fail if it ain't a Fibonacci > and indicate a device exception in scsw together with the proper residual > count. With this we can do basic verification of data integrity. > > Of course lot's of invalid inputs (besides basic data processing) can be > tested with that as well. > > We also have a no-op mode where the device just tells all-good! This > could be useful for fuzzing. > > Usage: > 1) fire up a qemu with something like -device ccw-testdev,devno=fe.0.0001 > on the command line > 2) exercise the device from the guest > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > > Introduction > ------------ > > While discussing v1 we (more or less) decided a test device for ccw is a > good idea. This is an RFC because there are some unresolved technical > questions I would like to discuss. > > Usage > ----- > > Build like this: make CONFIG_CCW_TESTDEV=y > > Changelog > --------- > > v1 -> v2: > - Renamed and moved to hw/misc/ > - Changed cu_type to 0xfffe. > - Changed chpid_type to 0x25 (questionable). > - Extensibility: addedd both in-band (ccw) and out-of-band set mode > mechanism. Currently we have two modes: fib and no-op. The purpose > of the mode mechanism is to facilitate different behaviors. One can > both specify and lock a mode on the command line. > - Added read for fib mode. > > Things I've figured out and things to figure out > ----------------------------------------------- > > The zVM folks say they don't have a reserved cu_type reserved for test > (or hypervisor use in general). So I've gone with cu_type 0xfffe because > according to Christian only numeric digit hex values are used, and Linux > uses x0ffff as extremal value. ack > > The zVM folks say the don't have a chpid_type reserved for test (or > hypervisor use in general. So I took 0x25 for now, which belongs to FC > and should be safe in my opinion. That's fine, I think. > > AFAIR there was some discussion on using a dedicated diag function code. > There are multiple such that could be re-purposed for out-of-band > signaling reserved by zVM. For now I've decided to go with a new subcode > for diag 0x500 as it appears to me that it requires less changes. It means that we don't have to synchronize with anyone else, yes. > > I've implemented both in-band and out-of-band signaling for influencing > what the testdev does from the guest. We should probably get rid of one. > I've just implemented both so we can discuss pros and cons with some > code. > > I've taken subcode 254, the last one supported at the moment. I'm not > really happy with the way I 'took' it. Maybe all taken subcodes > could go into hw/s390x/s390-virtio-hcall.h either via include or > directly. For virtio-ccw, we're going the way via the standard headers (as for other virtio things). The last used subcode for the old virtio transport is already in this file (in s390-next). We currently have Documentation/virtual/kvm/s390-diag.txt in the kernel. Not sure whether that would be a good place to document the testdev subcode. > > I'm not really happy with the side effects of moving it to hw/misc, which > ain't s390x specific. I've pretty much bounced off the build system, so > I would really appreciate some help here. Currently you have to say you > want it when you do make or it won't get compiled into your qemu. IMHO > this device only makes sense for testing and should not be rutinely > shipped in production builds. That is why I did not touch > default-configs/s390x-softmmu.mak. The pci and isa testdevs seem to be included on all platforms that support isa/pci (except for the pci testdev on s390x). They do have their own config symbols, so they can be manually disabled should it be desired. This seems like a good way to go for us as well. > > I think, I have the most problematic places marked with a TODO > comment in the code. I'll save looking at the code for another day.
* Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-11-08 17:54:20 +0100]: Hi Halil, > Add a fake device meant for testing the correctness of our css emulation. > > What we currently have is writing a Fibonacci sequence of uint32_t to the > device via ccw write. The write is going to fail if it ain't a Fibonacci > and indicate a device exception in scsw together with the proper residual > count. With this we can do basic verification of data integrity. > > Of course lot's of invalid inputs (besides basic data processing) can be > tested with that as well. > > We also have a no-op mode where the device just tells all-good! This > could be useful for fuzzing. > > Usage: > 1) fire up a qemu with something like -device ccw-testdev,devno=fe.0.0001 > on the command line > 2) exercise the device from the guest > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > > Introduction > ------------ > > While discussing v1 we (more or less) decided a test device for ccw is a > good idea. This is an RFC because there are some unresolved technical > questions I would like to discuss. > Regarding to test coverage, this mainly covers the cds_read. What we want would be surely more than this. So to extend the coverage, we need to design more modes (aka, test cases), right? If nobody disagrees with the basic idea of this series, I can start a review then. ;) [...]
On 11/23/2017 09:20 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote: > * Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-11-08 17:54:20 +0100]: > > Hi Halil, > >> Add a fake device meant for testing the correctness of our css emulation. >> >> What we currently have is writing a Fibonacci sequence of uint32_t to the >> device via ccw write. The write is going to fail if it ain't a Fibonacci >> and indicate a device exception in scsw together with the proper residual >> count. With this we can do basic verification of data integrity. >> >> Of course lot's of invalid inputs (besides basic data processing) can be >> tested with that as well. >> >> We also have a no-op mode where the device just tells all-good! This >> could be useful for fuzzing. >> >> Usage: >> 1) fire up a qemu with something like -device ccw-testdev,devno=fe.0.0001 >> on the command line >> 2) exercise the device from the guest >> >> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> >> Introduction >> ------------ >> >> While discussing v1 we (more or less) decided a test device for ccw is a >> good idea. This is an RFC because there are some unresolved technical >> questions I would like to discuss. >> > Regarding to test coverage, this mainly covers the cds_read. This series has only a linux module with some texts and is more of a PoC than the way it should be done. I think I wrote somewhere about this. The ccw-testdev being mainly about cds_read is not correct. See the TIC must have zero count test in patch 3. The cds things only become relevant if data matters for the test. The ccw-testdev is about making it possible to check how does the channel subsystem respond to certain stimuli without actually having to care about a real device. > What we > want would be surely more than this. So to extend the coverage, we need > to design more modes (aka, test cases), right? Modes and testcases are not the same. See patches 2 and 3. Modes are mostly for being extensible in a sense of expect the unexpected. I don't have too may ideas for modes (one more I can think of could be some tee like proxy for doing whatever kind of assertions/analysis on what some driver does). In the previous round we said we want this extensible, and it make sense. > > If nobody disagrees with the basic idea of this series, I can start a > review then. ;) > > [...] >
Hi Halil, just a high-level review since I'm not a CSS expert... On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: [...] > I'm not really happy with the side effects of moving it to hw/misc, which > ain't s390x specific. Sorry, I'm missing the context - why can't this go into hw/s390x/ ? > I've pretty much bounced off the build system, so > I would really appreciate some help here. Currently you have to say you > want it when you do make or it won't get compiled into your qemu. IMHO > this device only makes sense for testing and should not be rutinely > shipped in production builds. That is why I did not touch > default-configs/s390x-softmmu.mak. You could at least add a CONFIG_CCW_TESTDEV=n there, but I think the normal QEMU policy is to enable everything by default to avoid that code is bit-rotting, so I think "=y" is also OK there (distros can then still disable it in downstream if they want). > I think, I have the most problematic places marked with a TODO > comment in the code. > > Happy reviewing and looking forward to your comments. > --- > hw/misc/Makefile.objs | 1 + > hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c | 284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h | 18 ++++ > 3 files changed, 303 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c > create mode 100644 hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h > > diff --git a/hw/misc/Makefile.objs b/hw/misc/Makefile.objs > index 19202d90cf..b41314d096 100644 > --- a/hw/misc/Makefile.objs > +++ b/hw/misc/Makefile.objs > @@ -61,3 +61,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_AUX) += auxbus.o > obj-$(CONFIG_ASPEED_SOC) += aspeed_scu.o aspeed_sdmc.o > obj-y += mmio_interface.o > obj-$(CONFIG_MSF2) += msf2-sysreg.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_CCW_TESTDEV) += ccw-testdev.o > diff --git a/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..39cf46e90d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c > @@ -0,0 +1,284 @@ Please add a short description of the device in a comment here. And don't you also want to add some license statement and/or author information here? > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > +#include "qapi/error.h" > +#include "qemu/module.h" > +#include "ccw-testdev.h" > +#include "hw/s390x/css.h" > +#include "hw/s390x/css-bridge.h" > +#include "hw/s390x/3270-ccw.h" > +#include "exec/address-spaces.h" > +#include "hw/s390x/s390-virtio-hcall.h" > +#include <error.h> > + > +typedef struct CcwTestDevDevice { > + CcwDevice parent_obj; > + uint16_t cu_type; > + uint8_t chpid_type; > + uint32_t op_mode; > + bool op_mode_locked; > + struct { > + uint32_t ring[4]; > + unsigned int next; > + } fib; > +} CcwTestDevDevice; > + > +typedef struct CcwTestDevClass { > + CCWDeviceClass parent_class; > + DeviceRealize parent_realize; > +} CcwTestDevClass; > + > +#define TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV "ccw-testdev" > + > +#define CCW_TESTDEV(obj) \ > + OBJECT_CHECK(CcwTestDevDevice, (obj), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) > +#define CCW_TESTDEV_CLASS(klass) \ > + OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(CcwTestDevClass, (klass), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) > +#define CCW_TESTDEV_GET_CLASS(obj) \ > + OBJECT_GET_CLASS(CcwTestDevClass, (obj), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) > + > +typedef int (*ccw_cb_t)(SubchDev *, CCW1); > +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode); > + > +/* TODO This is the in-band set mode. We may want to get rid of it. */ > +static int set_mode_ccw(SubchDev *sch) > +{ > + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; > + const char pattern[] = CCW_TST_SET_MODE_INCANTATION; > + char buf[sizeof(pattern)]; > + int ret; > + uint32_t tmp; > + > + if (d->op_mode_locked) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, buf); > + if (ret) { > + return ret; > + } > + ret = strncmp(buf, pattern, sizeof(pattern)); > + if (ret) { > + return 0; /* ignore malformed request -- maybe fuzzing */ > + } > + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, tmp); > + if (ret) { > + return ret; > + } > + be32_to_cpus(&tmp); > + if (tmp >= OP_MODE_MAX) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + d->op_mode = tmp; > + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(d->op_mode); > + return ret; > +} > + > + Please remove one empty line above. > +static unsigned int abs_to_ring(unsigned int i) IMHO a short comment above that function would be nice. If I just read "abs_to_ring(unsigned int i)" I have a hard time to figure out what this means. > +{ > + return i & 0x3; > +} > + > +static int ccw_testdev_write_fib(SubchDev *sch) > +{ > + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; > + bool is_fib = true; > + uint32_t tmp; > + int ret = 0; > + > + d->fib.next = 0; > + while (ccw_dstream_avail(&sch->cds) > 0) { > + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, tmp); > + if (ret) { > + error(0, -ret, "fib"); Where does this error() function come from? I failed to spot its location... > + break; > + } > + d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next)] = cpu_to_be32(tmp); > + if (d->fib.next > 2) { > + tmp = (d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next - 1)] > + + d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next - 2)]); > + is_fib = tmp == d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next)]; > + if (!is_fib) { > + break; > + } > + } > + ++(d->fib.next); I'd prefer to do this without braces, e.g.: d->fib.next++; > + } > + if (!is_fib) { > + sch->curr_status.scsw.ctrl &= ~SCSW_ACTL_START_PEND; > + sch->curr_status.scsw.ctrl |= SCSW_STCTL_PRIMARY | > + SCSW_STCTL_SECONDARY | > + SCSW_STCTL_ALERT | > + SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND; > + sch->curr_status.scsw.count = ccw_dstream_residual_count(&sch->cds); > + sch->curr_status.scsw.cpa = sch->channel_prog + 8; > + sch->curr_status.scsw.dstat = SCSW_DSTAT_UNIT_EXCEP; > + return -EIO; > + } > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int ccw_testdev_read_fib(SubchDev *sch) > +{ > + uint32_t l = 0, m = 1, n = 0; > + int ret = 0; > + > + while (ccw_dstream_avail(&sch->cds) > 0) { > + n = m + l; > + l = m; > + m = n; > + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, n); > + } > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib(SubchDev *sch, CCW1 ccw) > +{ > + switch (ccw.cmd_code) { > + case CCW_CMD_READ: > + ccw_testdev_read_fib(sch); > + break; > + case CCW_CMD_WRITE: > + return ccw_testdev_write_fib(sch); > + case CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE: > + return set_mode_ccw(sch); > + default: > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop(SubchDev *sch, CCW1 ccw) > +{ > + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; > + > + if (!d->op_mode_locked && ccw.cmd_code == CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE) { > + return set_mode_ccw(sch); > + } > + return 0; > +} > + > +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) > +{ > + switch (op_mode) { > + case OP_MODE_FIB: > + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; > + case OP_MODE_NOP: > + default: > + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? > + } > +} > + > +static void ccw_testdev_realize(DeviceState *ds, Error **errp) > +{ > + uint16_t chpid; > + CcwTestDevDevice *dev = CCW_TESTDEV(ds); > + CcwTestDevClass *ctc = CCW_TESTDEV_GET_CLASS(dev); > + CcwDevice *cdev = CCW_DEVICE(ds); > + BusState *qbus = qdev_get_parent_bus(ds); > + VirtualCssBus *cbus = VIRTUAL_CSS_BUS(qbus); > + SubchDev *sch; > + Error *err = NULL; > + > + sch = css_create_sch(cdev->devno, true, cbus->squash_mcss, errp); > + if (!sch) { > + return; > + } > + > + sch->driver_data = dev; > + cdev->sch = sch; > + chpid = css_find_free_chpid(sch->cssid); > + > + if (chpid > MAX_CHPID) { > + error_setg(&err, "No available chpid to use."); > + goto out_err; > + } > + > + sch->id.reserved = 0xff; > + sch->id.cu_type = dev->cu_type; > + css_sch_build_virtual_schib(sch, (uint8_t)chpid, > + dev->chpid_type); > + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); > + sch->do_subchannel_work = do_subchannel_work_virtual; > + > + Please remove superfluous empty line. > + ctc->parent_realize(ds, &err); > + if (err) { > + goto out_err; > + } > + > + css_generate_sch_crws(sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid, > + ds->hotplugged, 1); > + return; > + > +out_err: > + error_propagate(errp, err); > + css_subch_assign(sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid, sch->devno, NULL); > + cdev->sch = NULL; > + g_free(sch); > +} > + > +static Property ccw_testdev_properties[] = { > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cu_type", CcwTestDevDevice, cu_type, > + 0xfffe), /* only numbers used for real HW */ > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("chpid_type", CcwTestDevDevice, chpid_type, > + 0x25), /* took FC, TODO discuss */ > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("op_mode", CcwTestDevDevice, op_mode, > + 0), /* TODO discuss */ > + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("op_mode_locked", CcwTestDevDevice, op_mode_locked, > + false), /* TODO discuss */ > + DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(), > +}; > + > +/* TODO This is the out-of-band variant. We may want to get rid of it */ I agree, this should rather go away in the final version. > +static int set_mode_diag(const uint64_t *args) > +{ > + uint64_t subch_id = args[0]; > + uint64_t op_mode = args[1]; > + SubchDev *sch; > + CcwTestDevDevice *dev; > + int cssid, ssid, schid, m; > + > + if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(subch_id, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid); > + if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + dev = CCW_TESTDEV(sch->driver_data); > + if (dev->op_mode_locked) { > + return op_mode == dev->op_mode ? 0 : -EINVAL; > + } > + dev->op_mode = op_mode; > + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void ccw_testdev_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data) > +{ > + DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(klass); > + CcwTestDevClass *ctc = CCW_TESTDEV_CLASS(klass); > + > + dc->props = ccw_testdev_properties; > + dc->bus_type = TYPE_VIRTUAL_CSS_BUS; > + ctc->parent_realize = dc->realize; > + dc->realize = ccw_testdev_realize; > + dc->hotpluggable = false; > + > + s390_register_virtio_hypercall(CCW_TST_DIAG_500_SUB, set_mode_diag); > +} > + > +static const TypeInfo ccw_testdev_info = { > + .name = TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV, > + .parent = TYPE_CCW_DEVICE, > + .instance_size = sizeof(CcwTestDevDevice), > + .class_init = ccw_testdev_class_init, > + .class_size = sizeof(CcwTestDevClass), > +}; > + > +static void ccw_testdev_register(void) > +{ > + type_register_static(&ccw_testdev_info); > +} > + > +type_init(ccw_testdev_register) > diff --git a/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..f4d4570f5e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ Add some license statement and/or author information here? > +#ifndef HW_s390X_CCW_TESTDEV_H > +#define HW_s390X_CCW_TESTDEV_H > + > +typedef enum CcwTestDevOpMode { > + OP_MODE_NOP = 0, > + OP_MODE_FIB = 1, > + OP_MODE_MAX /* extremal element */ > +} CcwTestDevOpMode; > + > +#define CCW_CMD_READ 0x01U > +#define CCW_CMD_WRITE 0x02U > + > +#define CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE 0x07U > +#define CCW_TST_SET_MODE_INCANTATION "SET MODE=" > +/* Subcode for diagnose 500 (virtio hypercall). */ > +#define CCW_TST_DIAG_500_SUB 254 > + > +#endif Thomas
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:33:19 +0100 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: > > +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) > > +{ > > + switch (op_mode) { > > + case OP_MODE_FIB: > > + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; > > + case OP_MODE_NOP: > > + default: > > + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; > > Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather > be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? I like the idea of an error mode. Related: Should the device have a mechanism to report the supported modes? > > > + } > > +} (...) > > +/* TODO This is the out-of-band variant. We may want to get rid of it */ > > I agree, this should rather go away in the final version. I'm not sure that the in-band variant with its magic buffer value is superior to this version using a dedicated hypercall. > > > +static int set_mode_diag(const uint64_t *args) > > +{ > > + uint64_t subch_id = args[0]; > > + uint64_t op_mode = args[1]; > > + SubchDev *sch; > > + CcwTestDevDevice *dev; > > + int cssid, ssid, schid, m; > > + > > + if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(subch_id, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) { > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid); > > + if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) { > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + dev = CCW_TESTDEV(sch->driver_data); > > + if (dev->op_mode_locked) { > > + return op_mode == dev->op_mode ? 0 : -EINVAL; > > + } > > + dev->op_mode = op_mode; > > + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); > > + return 0;
On 11/08/2017 05:54 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > +/* TODO This is the out-of-band variant. We may want to get rid of it */ > +static int set_mode_diag(const uint64_t *args) > +{ > + uint64_t subch_id = args[0]; > + uint64_t op_mode = args[1]; > + SubchDev *sch; > + CcwTestDevDevice *dev; > + int cssid, ssid, schid, m; > + > + if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(subch_id, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid); > + if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + dev = CCW_TESTDEV(sch->driver_data); > + if (dev->op_mode_locked) { > + return op_mode == dev->op_mode ? 0 : -EINVAL; > + } Should probably do validation on op_mode here. > + dev->op_mode = op_mode; > + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); > + return 0; > +} > +
On 12/07/2017 12:59 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:33:19 +0100 > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) >>> +{ >>> + switch (op_mode) { >>> + case OP_MODE_FIB: >>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; >>> + case OP_MODE_NOP: >>> + default: >>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; >> >> Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather >> be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? > > I like the idea of an error mode. What would be the benefit of the error mode? The idea is that the tester in the guest has a certain set of tests implemented each requiring certain behavior from the device. This behavior is represented by the mode. If the device does not support the mode, the set of tests can't be executed meaningfully. The only option is either ignore them (and preferably report them as ignored), or fail them (not soo good in my opinion). The in guest tester should simply iterate over it test sets and try to select the mode the test set (or suite in other terminology) requires. If selecting the mode fails, than means you are working with an old ccw-testdev. > > Related: Should the device have a mechanism to report the supported > modes? > I don't see the value. See above. I think the set mode operation reporting failure is sufficient. But if you have something in mind, please do tell. I'm open. >> >>> + } >>> +} > > (...) > >>> +/* TODO This is the out-of-band variant. We may want to get rid of it */ >> >> I agree, this should rather go away in the final version. > > I'm not sure that the in-band variant with its magic buffer value is > superior to this version using a dedicated hypercall. > I have a similar todo comment for the in-band variant. It is basically up to us to decide which one do we want to keep. It's been a while since I've looked at this, but AFAIR the out-of-band appears cleaner. >> >>> +static int set_mode_diag(const uint64_t *args) >>> +{ >>> + uint64_t subch_id = args[0]; >>> + uint64_t op_mode = args[1]; >>> + SubchDev *sch; >>> + CcwTestDevDevice *dev; >>> + int cssid, ssid, schid, m; >>> + >>> + if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(subch_id, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) { >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid); >>> + if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) { >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + dev = CCW_TESTDEV(sch->driver_data); >>> + if (dev->op_mode_locked) { >>> + return op_mode == dev->op_mode ? 0 : -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + dev->op_mode = op_mode; >>> + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); >>> + return 0; >
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:38:22 +0100 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 12/07/2017 12:59 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:33:19 +0100 > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > >>> +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) > >>> +{ > >>> + switch (op_mode) { > >>> + case OP_MODE_FIB: > >>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; > >>> + case OP_MODE_NOP: > >>> + default: > >>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; > >> > >> Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather > >> be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? > > > > I like the idea of an error mode. > > What would be the benefit of the error mode? The idea is that > the tester in the guest has a certain set of tests implemented > each requiring certain behavior from the device. This behavior > is represented by the mode. > > If the device does not support the mode, the set of tests can't > be executed meaningfully. The only option is either ignore them > (and preferably report them as ignored), or fail them (not soo > good in my opinion). Failing it sounds superior to me: You really want to know if something does not work as expected. > > The in guest tester should simply iterate over it test sets > and try to select the mode the test set (or suite in other > terminology) requires. If selecting the mode fails, than > means you are working with an old ccw-testdev. > > > > > Related: Should the device have a mechanism to report the supported > > modes? > > > > I don't see the value. See above. I think the set mode operation > reporting failure is sufficient. > > But if you have something in mind, please do tell. I'm open. If we keep guest/host in lockstep, we probably don't need this. But if not, self-reporting looks like a reasonable feature as it gives more flexibility.
On 12/07/2017 01:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:38:22 +0100 > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 12/07/2017 12:59 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:33:19 +0100 >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: >>> >>>>> +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + switch (op_mode) { >>>>> + case OP_MODE_FIB: >>>>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; >>>>> + case OP_MODE_NOP: >>>>> + default: >>>>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; >>>> >>>> Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather >>>> be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? >>> >>> I like the idea of an error mode. >> >> What would be the benefit of the error mode? The idea is that >> the tester in the guest has a certain set of tests implemented >> each requiring certain behavior from the device. This behavior >> is represented by the mode. >> >> If the device does not support the mode, the set of tests can't >> be executed meaningfully. The only option is either ignore them >> (and preferably report them as ignored), or fail them (not soo >> good in my opinion). > > Failing it sounds superior to me: You really want to know if something > does not work as expected. > When doing unit tests it's usual to differentiate between: * success, which ideally should give you guarantees about the unit not misbehaving in production if client code respects the contract * failure, which ideally should pretty much narrow down what went wrong * ignored, either due to user explicitly disabled a test, or a precondition for executing the was not met. If you think traffic light its green, red and yellow respectively. For instance qemu-iotests also skips tests where the environment does not provide a preconditions necessary to execute it. Of course a quality gate for a release should really be the suite executed successfully (green), and not some tests were skipped. A quality gate for let's day sending a series to the list could also be defined less rigorous. >> >> The in guest tester should simply iterate over it test sets >> and try to select the mode the test set (or suite in other >> terminology) requires. If selecting the mode fails, than >> means you are working with an old ccw-testdev. >> >>> >>> Related: Should the device have a mechanism to report the supported >>> modes? >>> >> >> I don't see the value. See above. I think the set mode operation >> reporting failure is sufficient. >> >> But if you have something in mind, please do tell. I'm open. > > If we keep guest/host in lockstep, we probably don't need this. But if > not, self-reporting looks like a reasonable feature as it gives more > flexibility. > I would prefer adding this should the need arise instead of speculatively. Would that be fine for you. BTW if interface stability is a concern maybe making the device experimental (at least for a while) is a good idea. Regards, Halil
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:35:26 +0100 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 12/07/2017 01:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:38:22 +0100 > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> On 12/07/2017 12:59 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 07:33:19 +0100 > >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 08.11.2017 17:54, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> > >>>>> +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) > >>>>> +{ > >>>>> + switch (op_mode) { > >>>>> + case OP_MODE_FIB: > >>>>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; > >>>>> + case OP_MODE_NOP: > >>>>> + default: > >>>>> + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; > >>>> > >>>> Do we really want to use "nop" for unknown modes? Or should there rather > >>>> be a ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_error instead, too? > >>> > >>> I like the idea of an error mode. > >> > >> What would be the benefit of the error mode? The idea is that > >> the tester in the guest has a certain set of tests implemented > >> each requiring certain behavior from the device. This behavior > >> is represented by the mode. > >> > >> If the device does not support the mode, the set of tests can't > >> be executed meaningfully. The only option is either ignore them > >> (and preferably report them as ignored), or fail them (not soo > >> good in my opinion). > > > > Failing it sounds superior to me: You really want to know if something > > does not work as expected. > > > > When doing unit tests it's usual to differentiate between: > * success, which ideally should give you guarantees about the unit > not misbehaving in production if client code respects the contract > * failure, which ideally should pretty much narrow down what > went wrong > * ignored, either due to user explicitly disabled a test, or > a precondition for executing the was not met. > > If you think traffic light its green, red and yellow respectively. > > For instance qemu-iotests also skips tests where the environment > does not provide a preconditions necessary to execute it. > > Of course a quality gate for a release should really be the suite > executed successfully (green), and not some tests were skipped. > > A quality gate for let's day sending a series to the list could > also be defined less rigorous. > > >> > >> The in guest tester should simply iterate over it test sets > >> and try to select the mode the test set (or suite in other > >> terminology) requires. If selecting the mode fails, than > >> means you are working with an old ccw-testdev. > >> > >>> > >>> Related: Should the device have a mechanism to report the supported > >>> modes? > >>> > >> > >> I don't see the value. See above. I think the set mode operation > >> reporting failure is sufficient. > >> > >> But if you have something in mind, please do tell. I'm open. > > > > If we keep guest/host in lockstep, we probably don't need this. But if > > not, self-reporting looks like a reasonable feature as it gives more > > flexibility. > > > I would prefer adding this should the need arise instead of > speculatively. Would that be fine for you. > > BTW if interface stability is a concern maybe making the device > experimental (at least for a while) is a good idea. Well, if we used qtests, we would be fine without an error state, as both sides have the same features.
diff --git a/hw/misc/Makefile.objs b/hw/misc/Makefile.objs index 19202d90cf..b41314d096 100644 --- a/hw/misc/Makefile.objs +++ b/hw/misc/Makefile.objs @@ -61,3 +61,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_AUX) += auxbus.o obj-$(CONFIG_ASPEED_SOC) += aspeed_scu.o aspeed_sdmc.o obj-y += mmio_interface.o obj-$(CONFIG_MSF2) += msf2-sysreg.o +obj-$(CONFIG_CCW_TESTDEV) += ccw-testdev.o diff --git a/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..39cf46e90d --- /dev/null +++ b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c @@ -0,0 +1,284 @@ +#include "qemu/osdep.h" +#include "qapi/error.h" +#include "qemu/module.h" +#include "ccw-testdev.h" +#include "hw/s390x/css.h" +#include "hw/s390x/css-bridge.h" +#include "hw/s390x/3270-ccw.h" +#include "exec/address-spaces.h" +#include "hw/s390x/s390-virtio-hcall.h" +#include <error.h> + +typedef struct CcwTestDevDevice { + CcwDevice parent_obj; + uint16_t cu_type; + uint8_t chpid_type; + uint32_t op_mode; + bool op_mode_locked; + struct { + uint32_t ring[4]; + unsigned int next; + } fib; +} CcwTestDevDevice; + +typedef struct CcwTestDevClass { + CCWDeviceClass parent_class; + DeviceRealize parent_realize; +} CcwTestDevClass; + +#define TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV "ccw-testdev" + +#define CCW_TESTDEV(obj) \ + OBJECT_CHECK(CcwTestDevDevice, (obj), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) +#define CCW_TESTDEV_CLASS(klass) \ + OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(CcwTestDevClass, (klass), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) +#define CCW_TESTDEV_GET_CLASS(obj) \ + OBJECT_GET_CLASS(CcwTestDevClass, (obj), TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV) + +typedef int (*ccw_cb_t)(SubchDev *, CCW1); +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode); + +/* TODO This is the in-band set mode. We may want to get rid of it. */ +static int set_mode_ccw(SubchDev *sch) +{ + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; + const char pattern[] = CCW_TST_SET_MODE_INCANTATION; + char buf[sizeof(pattern)]; + int ret; + uint32_t tmp; + + if (d->op_mode_locked) { + return -EINVAL; + } + + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, buf); + if (ret) { + return ret; + } + ret = strncmp(buf, pattern, sizeof(pattern)); + if (ret) { + return 0; /* ignore malformed request -- maybe fuzzing */ + } + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, tmp); + if (ret) { + return ret; + } + be32_to_cpus(&tmp); + if (tmp >= OP_MODE_MAX) { + return -EINVAL; + } + d->op_mode = tmp; + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(d->op_mode); + return ret; +} + + +static unsigned int abs_to_ring(unsigned int i) +{ + return i & 0x3; +} + +static int ccw_testdev_write_fib(SubchDev *sch) +{ + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; + bool is_fib = true; + uint32_t tmp; + int ret = 0; + + d->fib.next = 0; + while (ccw_dstream_avail(&sch->cds) > 0) { + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, tmp); + if (ret) { + error(0, -ret, "fib"); + break; + } + d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next)] = cpu_to_be32(tmp); + if (d->fib.next > 2) { + tmp = (d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next - 1)] + + d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next - 2)]); + is_fib = tmp == d->fib.ring[abs_to_ring(d->fib.next)]; + if (!is_fib) { + break; + } + } + ++(d->fib.next); + } + if (!is_fib) { + sch->curr_status.scsw.ctrl &= ~SCSW_ACTL_START_PEND; + sch->curr_status.scsw.ctrl |= SCSW_STCTL_PRIMARY | + SCSW_STCTL_SECONDARY | + SCSW_STCTL_ALERT | + SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND; + sch->curr_status.scsw.count = ccw_dstream_residual_count(&sch->cds); + sch->curr_status.scsw.cpa = sch->channel_prog + 8; + sch->curr_status.scsw.dstat = SCSW_DSTAT_UNIT_EXCEP; + return -EIO; + } + return ret; +} + +static int ccw_testdev_read_fib(SubchDev *sch) +{ + uint32_t l = 0, m = 1, n = 0; + int ret = 0; + + while (ccw_dstream_avail(&sch->cds) > 0) { + n = m + l; + l = m; + m = n; + ret = ccw_dstream_read(&sch->cds, n); + } + return ret; +} + +static int ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib(SubchDev *sch, CCW1 ccw) +{ + switch (ccw.cmd_code) { + case CCW_CMD_READ: + ccw_testdev_read_fib(sch); + break; + case CCW_CMD_WRITE: + return ccw_testdev_write_fib(sch); + case CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE: + return set_mode_ccw(sch); + default: + return -EINVAL; + } + return 0; +} + +static int ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop(SubchDev *sch, CCW1 ccw) +{ + CcwTestDevDevice *d = sch->driver_data; + + if (!d->op_mode_locked && ccw.cmd_code == CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE) { + return set_mode_ccw(sch); + } + return 0; +} + +static ccw_cb_t get_ccw_cb(CcwTestDevOpMode op_mode) +{ + switch (op_mode) { + case OP_MODE_FIB: + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_fib; + case OP_MODE_NOP: + default: + return ccw_testdev_ccw_cb_mode_nop; + } +} + +static void ccw_testdev_realize(DeviceState *ds, Error **errp) +{ + uint16_t chpid; + CcwTestDevDevice *dev = CCW_TESTDEV(ds); + CcwTestDevClass *ctc = CCW_TESTDEV_GET_CLASS(dev); + CcwDevice *cdev = CCW_DEVICE(ds); + BusState *qbus = qdev_get_parent_bus(ds); + VirtualCssBus *cbus = VIRTUAL_CSS_BUS(qbus); + SubchDev *sch; + Error *err = NULL; + + sch = css_create_sch(cdev->devno, true, cbus->squash_mcss, errp); + if (!sch) { + return; + } + + sch->driver_data = dev; + cdev->sch = sch; + chpid = css_find_free_chpid(sch->cssid); + + if (chpid > MAX_CHPID) { + error_setg(&err, "No available chpid to use."); + goto out_err; + } + + sch->id.reserved = 0xff; + sch->id.cu_type = dev->cu_type; + css_sch_build_virtual_schib(sch, (uint8_t)chpid, + dev->chpid_type); + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); + sch->do_subchannel_work = do_subchannel_work_virtual; + + + ctc->parent_realize(ds, &err); + if (err) { + goto out_err; + } + + css_generate_sch_crws(sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid, + ds->hotplugged, 1); + return; + +out_err: + error_propagate(errp, err); + css_subch_assign(sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid, sch->devno, NULL); + cdev->sch = NULL; + g_free(sch); +} + +static Property ccw_testdev_properties[] = { + DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cu_type", CcwTestDevDevice, cu_type, + 0xfffe), /* only numbers used for real HW */ + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("chpid_type", CcwTestDevDevice, chpid_type, + 0x25), /* took FC, TODO discuss */ + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("op_mode", CcwTestDevDevice, op_mode, + 0), /* TODO discuss */ + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("op_mode_locked", CcwTestDevDevice, op_mode_locked, + false), /* TODO discuss */ + DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(), +}; + +/* TODO This is the out-of-band variant. We may want to get rid of it */ +static int set_mode_diag(const uint64_t *args) +{ + uint64_t subch_id = args[0]; + uint64_t op_mode = args[1]; + SubchDev *sch; + CcwTestDevDevice *dev; + int cssid, ssid, schid, m; + + if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(subch_id, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) { + return -EINVAL; + } + sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid); + if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) { + return -EINVAL; + } + dev = CCW_TESTDEV(sch->driver_data); + if (dev->op_mode_locked) { + return op_mode == dev->op_mode ? 0 : -EINVAL; + } + dev->op_mode = op_mode; + sch->ccw_cb = get_ccw_cb(dev->op_mode); + return 0; +} + +static void ccw_testdev_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data) +{ + DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(klass); + CcwTestDevClass *ctc = CCW_TESTDEV_CLASS(klass); + + dc->props = ccw_testdev_properties; + dc->bus_type = TYPE_VIRTUAL_CSS_BUS; + ctc->parent_realize = dc->realize; + dc->realize = ccw_testdev_realize; + dc->hotpluggable = false; + + s390_register_virtio_hypercall(CCW_TST_DIAG_500_SUB, set_mode_diag); +} + +static const TypeInfo ccw_testdev_info = { + .name = TYPE_CCW_TESTDEV, + .parent = TYPE_CCW_DEVICE, + .instance_size = sizeof(CcwTestDevDevice), + .class_init = ccw_testdev_class_init, + .class_size = sizeof(CcwTestDevClass), +}; + +static void ccw_testdev_register(void) +{ + type_register_static(&ccw_testdev_info); +} + +type_init(ccw_testdev_register) diff --git a/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..f4d4570f5e --- /dev/null +++ b/hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +#ifndef HW_s390X_CCW_TESTDEV_H +#define HW_s390X_CCW_TESTDEV_H + +typedef enum CcwTestDevOpMode { + OP_MODE_NOP = 0, + OP_MODE_FIB = 1, + OP_MODE_MAX /* extremal element */ +} CcwTestDevOpMode; + +#define CCW_CMD_READ 0x01U +#define CCW_CMD_WRITE 0x02U + +#define CCW_CMD_CTL_MODE 0x07U +#define CCW_TST_SET_MODE_INCANTATION "SET MODE=" +/* Subcode for diagnose 500 (virtio hypercall). */ +#define CCW_TST_DIAG_500_SUB 254 + +#endif
Add a fake device meant for testing the correctness of our css emulation. What we currently have is writing a Fibonacci sequence of uint32_t to the device via ccw write. The write is going to fail if it ain't a Fibonacci and indicate a device exception in scsw together with the proper residual count. With this we can do basic verification of data integrity. Of course lot's of invalid inputs (besides basic data processing) can be tested with that as well. We also have a no-op mode where the device just tells all-good! This could be useful for fuzzing. Usage: 1) fire up a qemu with something like -device ccw-testdev,devno=fe.0.0001 on the command line 2) exercise the device from the guest Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Introduction ------------ While discussing v1 we (more or less) decided a test device for ccw is a good idea. This is an RFC because there are some unresolved technical questions I would like to discuss. Usage ----- Build like this: make CONFIG_CCW_TESTDEV=y Changelog --------- v1 -> v2: - Renamed and moved to hw/misc/ - Changed cu_type to 0xfffe. - Changed chpid_type to 0x25 (questionable). - Extensibility: addedd both in-band (ccw) and out-of-band set mode mechanism. Currently we have two modes: fib and no-op. The purpose of the mode mechanism is to facilitate different behaviors. One can both specify and lock a mode on the command line. - Added read for fib mode. Things I've figured out and things to figure out ----------------------------------------------- The zVM folks say they don't have a reserved cu_type reserved for test (or hypervisor use in general). So I've gone with cu_type 0xfffe because according to Christian only numeric digit hex values are used, and Linux uses x0ffff as extremal value. The zVM folks say the don't have a chpid_type reserved for test (or hypervisor use in general. So I took 0x25 for now, which belongs to FC and should be safe in my opinion. AFAIR there was some discussion on using a dedicated diag function code. There are multiple such that could be re-purposed for out-of-band signaling reserved by zVM. For now I've decided to go with a new subcode for diag 0x500 as it appears to me that it requires less changes. I've implemented both in-band and out-of-band signaling for influencing what the testdev does from the guest. We should probably get rid of one. I've just implemented both so we can discuss pros and cons with some code. I've taken subcode 254, the last one supported at the moment. I'm not really happy with the way I 'took' it. Maybe all taken subcodes could go into hw/s390x/s390-virtio-hcall.h either via include or directly. I'm not really happy with the side effects of moving it to hw/misc, which ain't s390x specific. I've pretty much bounced off the build system, so I would really appreciate some help here. Currently you have to say you want it when you do make or it won't get compiled into your qemu. IMHO this device only makes sense for testing and should not be rutinely shipped in production builds. That is why I did not touch default-configs/s390x-softmmu.mak. I think, I have the most problematic places marked with a TODO comment in the code. Happy reviewing and looking forward to your comments. --- hw/misc/Makefile.objs | 1 + hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c | 284 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h | 18 ++++ 3 files changed, 303 insertions(+) create mode 100644 hw/misc/ccw-testdev.c create mode 100644 hw/misc/ccw-testdev.h